Archive

While one of the most common initial responses to racial profiling is a denial that it occurs, there are some who do not deny its existence but rather argue that it does and should occur because it is a useful and appropriate tool to focus limited resources on those who are most likely to be engaged in inappropriate behaviour.

To those who have not experienced racial profiling or do not know someone who has, it may seem to be nothing more than a mere inconvenience. However, racial profiling is much more than a hassle or an annoyance. It has real and direct consequences. Those who experience profiling pay the price emotionally, psychologically, mentally and in some cases even financially and physically.

This section of the Report will focus specifically on what the Commission heard about racial profiling from members of Ontario’s Aboriginal Community. The term “Aboriginal” is determined by the federal government to include four sub groups:

The effects of racial profiling identified in this report raise significant human rights issues to which society must respond. We cannot afford to allow racial profiling to be tolerated and practiced in Ontario. The cost is simply too great. It is imperative that swift and effective action be taken.

Alan Andrews, Review of Race Relations Practices of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force (for the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, 1992) Arthur Maloney, Report to the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police (for the Province of Ontario, 1975) Canadian Heritage Multiculturalism, National Forum on Policing in a Multicultural Society: Report on Strategies, Recommendations and Best Practices (February, 2003)

Section 30 of the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code) authorizes the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) to prepare, approve and publish human rights policies to provide guidance on interpreting provisions of the Code.[∗] The OHRC’s policies and guidelines set standards for how individuals, employers, service providers and policy-makers should act to ensure compliance with the Code.

In October 2003, the OHRC released its consultation report entitled The Opportunity to Succeed: Achieving Barrier-free Education for Students with Disabilities (The Opportunity to Succeed). The report was the product of the OHRC’s research and consultation with a wide array of interested parties during the fall of 2002 on human rights issues affecting students with disabilities.

As part of the duty to accommodate, education providers are responsible for taking steps to plan for the accommodation of students with disabilities. Effective planning will take place both on an organizational level and on an individual level in relation to each student with accommodation needs. Individual planning should also address the transition needs of a student as he or she moves from one level or type of education to another.

Anti-harassment policy The following are suggested contents for an anti-harassment policy that is broad enough to cover all forms of harassment in the educational setting.

Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, persons with disabilities have the right to equal treatment in accessing services such as those provided by restaurants, shops, hotels, movie theatres and other public places. Businesses have an obligation to make their facilities accessible.

In recent years, the proportion of complaints citing the ground of disability has been reaching 50% or more of the Commission’s annual caseload. Although a large majority of complaints are in the area of employment, the Commission regularly receives inquiries and takes in complaints from persons with disabilities alleging that restaurant facilities and services are inaccessible.

Seven of the 29 high-profile restaurant chains that were previously surveyed in 2001 through correspondence from the Commission were selected. These chains are: Country Style Donuts, McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, Subway, Swiss Chalet and Tim Hortons. It was premised that an audit of four sites per chain, for a total of 28 sites across seven chains, would provide an indication of the nature of existing barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from accessing restaurants in their community.

Providers of restaurant services must comply with the requirements of both the Building Code and the Human Rights Code. Those who do not may pay a high price in terms of loss of a significant client base and damaged reputations. Accessibility also makes good business sense, particularly in light of our aging population and the greater numbers of Ontarians exhibiting varying degrees of ability, as well as families with small children. All of these groups can benefit from accessibility features such as ramps, automatic doors and unobstructed passageways.

The Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission Concerning Barrier-Free Access Requirements in the Ontario Building Code[5]was made in March 2002 to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in regard to that Ministry’s review of the provisions of the Building Code Act: The following is a summary of concerns raised by the Commission:

The Ontario Human Rights Code[3] (the “Code”) states that it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination.

The Commission has a broad mandate to deal with issues of discrimination.

Overview In the 2001-02 school year, over 2 million students attended publicly funded elementary and secondary schools in Ontario.[8] Publicly funded elementary and secondary schools are governed by the Education Act[9] (the “Act”) and its accompanyin

Overview Ontario offers a wide range of postsecondary options. These include eighteen universities, twenty-five colleges of applied arts and technology, agricultural colleges, colleges of health sciences and of art, a military college, privately funded degree granting institutions, and private career colleges. There are also professional accreditation bodies that offer courses and evaluate students, such as, for example, the Law Society of Upper Canada.

Responsibility for addressing the needs of students with disabilities is assigned to different parties including the Ministries of Education and of Training, Colleges and Universities, post-secondary institutions, schools and school boards, educators, specialized professionals, parents and students themselves. In the private education system, each individual school or post-secondary institution, as a service-provider, is responsible for accommodating students with disabilities up to the point of undue hardship.

School Boards and Schools Make all classroom materials (handouts, etc.) available in alternative formats in a timely manner.  Review local level practices to determine ways in which accommodation can be provided in a more timely manner. Decide their curriculum book lists in a timely fashion so that alternative formats may be arranged for students with disabilities. Provide interim accommodation for students pending the completion of professional assessments. Consistent with the Commission’s Disability Policy, edu

ARCH (A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities) Association for Bright Children of Ontario Association of Education and Rehabilitation Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired Autism Society Ontario Bloorview MacMillan Children’s Centre B’nai Brith Canada Brampton Caledon Community Living Cameron Bay Children’s Centre Canadian Council of the Blind (Ontario Division) Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law Canadian Hearing Society (North Bay)

(with corresponding French acronym in parenthesis)

The main purpose of this report is to examine whether the Ontario Safe Schools Act and Regulations and the school board policies on discipline, known by some as “zero tolerance” policies, are having a disproportionate impact on racial minority students and students with disabilities. Since September 2001, when the Act came into effect, school boards around the province have been drafting and implementing policies and procedures to comply with the Act.

In Ontario, the first serious steps towards taking a zero tolerance approach to discipline matters in schools began in the mid-1990s. In late 1993, the Scarborough Board of Education adopted a Safe Schools Policy on Violence and Weapons, which appears to have been the first official zero tolerance policy in the province.

A.