OHRC response to Ministry of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security

March 4, 2026

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback during this consultation period and for providing the submission guidelines. Set out below is the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s (OHRC) response to the Ministry of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security on its stakeholder consultations regarding the measures proposed in the legislation to better understand ancillary fees and admissions at publicly assisted colleges and universities. This should be read in conjunction with the “OHRC Submission on Bill 33 Regarding Admissions Policies used by Colleges and Universities” as the OHRC elaborates on the content and recommendations set out in that submission. 

The OHRC’s submission is in relation to the government and the post-secondary sector with respect to admissions and ensuring they are consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code). In so doing, the OHRC outlines how the Code applies to post-secondary education admissions, including the concept of “merit.”

Post-secondary education admission processes should adopt a human rights-based approach, which is built on “substantive equality”. Substantive equality means understanding and accommodating the needs of disadvantaged persons or groups using historical, legal and social contexts. To achieve substantive equality may require positive action to address adverse effects on historically disadvantaged groups.[i] In the context of post-secondary education admissions, an admissions process that furthers the goal of substantive equality would account for the persistent disadvantages that people from marginalized groups have faced which have limited their opportunities in higher education.

That approach should consider the whole student, which includes grades and their lived experience. This might involve focusing on descriptions of applicants’ strengths, personal experiences, achievements, and demonstrations of leadership.  By doing so, colleges and universities can benefit from a talented and experienced student body with diverse perspectives who can fully contribute to the life of the province and the workforce. 

By contrast, narrow definitions of merit which only focus on a student’s academic record fail to consider systemic discrimination that affects students from historically marginalized groups, which could have affected their grades in the Kindergarten to Grade 12 education system. A narrow grades-based admissions standard may exclude consideration of students’ broader experiences that demonstrate their potential to succeed in post-secondary education.

Standard setting around admissions must be consistent with the principles of substantive equality as identified in the Code and section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Human rights and equality legislation recognize that identical or seemingly neutral treatment can produce significant inequality for people from historically disadvantaged communities.[ii] 
 

Guiding principles 

Assessing individuals based on their individual merits and circumstances as opposed to relying on presumed characteristics is consistent with the purpose of the Code: to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and provide equal rights and opportunities without discrimination. The OHRC recognizes the value of assessing an applicant’s ability to succeed in post-secondary education. However, not everyone has equal access to the opportunity to demonstrate their potential, and that could have been the result of their social, economic or historical circumstances.[iii] To avoid perpetuating systemic human rights barriers in admissions, conceptions and understanding of merit and admissions criteria should be inclusive and designed to consider the circumstances of and impacts on historically disadvantaged groups. 

Post-secondary admissions policies, criteria and decision-taking process must abide by the Code. Further, any provincial regulation guiding admissions, whether it defines merit, must align with, and not inhibit, the obligations imposed by the Code on a college or university. As noted above, definitions of merit that are narrow and focus solely on a student’s academic record will fail to consider systemic discrimination that affects students from historically marginalized groups. In addition, narrow concepts of merit in government regulation or institutional policy or practice must not prevent or discourage post-secondary institutions from: 

• Satisfying their duty to remove barriers that cause systemic discrimination
• Meeting their duty to accommodate an individual’s Code-related needs during the admissions process
• Using their discretionary authority to develop special programs, which are aimed at alleviating discrimination and hardship for disadvantaged groups and are protected under the Code (section 14) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [section 15(2)].
   

Inclusive admissions criteria (standards) 

In the admissions process, post-secondary institutions have the role of assessing the ability of an applicant to succeed in a program of study.[iv] A student’s academic record is one part of this assessment. The Ontario Court of Appeal has affirmed that post-secondary institutions are entitled to use grades or academic standards to make their admissions assessments, but in doing so they still must meet their obligations under the Code.[v]

The OHRC’s previous submission provides examples of systemic discrimination — such as lack of support, discrimination and harassment — that affect Black students and students with disabilities in the Kindergarten to Grade 12 education system, which may in turn impact students’ achievement levels. If grades are the sole driver of post-secondary admissions, historically marginalized groups will likely experience greater rates of exclusion. In addition, narrow definitions of merit may privilege students with higher incomes who have greater ability to pay for tutors and have more resources and time to volunteer and participate in extra-curricular activities.[vi] 

Post-secondary institutions have an obligation to make sure they are not engaging in systemic discrimination in admitting students to their institutions. As such, it is essential that post-secondary institutions design all aspects of their policies and practices inclusively, by removing barriers at the outset. Admissions standards (or criteria, or notions of merit) should be designed to consider the circumstances of and impacts on groups that have been historically disadvantaged in the post-secondary education system. Standards should be designed to reflect all members of society, to the extent that this is reasonably possible.[vii]

Designing inclusively does not mean lowering “bona fide requirements,” which are the skills or attributes that one must meet to be eligible for admission. 

Inclusive admissions criteria can remove barriers by considering the entire student experience and by using information in addition to grades that can inform decision-making. These criteria should be designed to relate to what they are assessing: a student’s ability to succeed in the program. Several universities have implemented a more inclusive approach to admissions by asking for information beyond academic records such as information about applicants’ personal experiences, activities that demonstrate leadership or citizenship, or experiences or accomplishments that show their strengths. 

Whether included in regulation or in admissions policies, admissions criteria may evolve over time, as the priorities of the institution and the demands of different programs of study change in response to the changing needs of the working world. These criteria should be reviewed and updated regularly to ensure consistency with the Code. 

When publicly sharing information, post-secondary education providers should clearly set out what the bona fide (legitimate) requirements of a course or program are, to enhance transparency, consistency, and fairness, and so students know what is expected of them.[viii]
 

Accommodating individualized needs 

Even where admission standards have been designed for inclusion, there may be individuals who require individualized accommodation based on Code-related needs. An academic standard must accommodate individual differences up to the point of undue hardship. This makes sure that each student is assessed based on their own personal abilities.[ix] A person may request accommodation in the admissions process if their ability to meet the standard/criteria has been affected by needs related to a Code ground, such as an unaccommodated disability.  

Institutions have a legal duty under the Code to consider requests for accommodation in good faith, considering each individual’s circumstances. Accommodation may mean allowing a student to demonstrate their ability to succeed in the program of study in alternative ways. The duty to accommodate does not require an education provider to exempt a student from meeting bona fide requirements, such as the skills that can show whether an applicant will be successful in a particular post-secondary program. 

Once a person has been admitted, accommodation does not alter the academic standards by which success in a course is determined.[x] Once they have received accommodation, a student must be able to meet bona fide academic requirements, such as demonstrating specific skills, mastering the curriculum, and passing the class, course or program. 
 

Special Programs

As noted in the OHRC’s previous submission, special programs are designed to alleviate hardship, economic disadvantage, inequality or discrimination and are protected under s. 14 of the Code and s. 15(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A narrow definition of merit risks discouraging post-secondary institutions from developing special programs by creating confusion regarding the legality of these initiatives. Any government regulation or institutional admissions policy that defines merit should clearly state that special programs are consistent with this meaning and should not discourage or prevent the creation of special programs. 

Special programs are one method organizations can use to promote substantive equality and combat systemic discrimination. Well-designed special programs are based on data that demonstrates that a certain group is under-represented or shows that the group experiences inequality, hardship or disadvantage. Under section 14 of the Code, an organization can implement special measures to respond to the needs of specific historically marginalized groups.    

For example, a special admissions program could involve a post-secondary institution offering transitional part-time courses and other supports to people from an under-represented marginalized group to help them upgrade their academic qualifications and move to a regular full-time program. It could involve a post-secondary institution offering alternative admission streams and additional supports to people from specific under-represented communities who meet the same admission requirements expected of other students to promote equal representation in their field of study.  

Misconceptions persist that special programs allow organizations to give preference to people from marginalized communities who lack “merit.” Conceptions of merit in post-secondary admissions should not be posited in an either/or dichotomy with “diversity.” Instead, by responding to demonstrated needs and real disadvantage, special programs can promote equal access, opportunity and representation and provide access to untapped pools of talent. Even with special admissions programs in place, students would still be expected to complete the requirements of the program of study and demonstrate proficiency in knowledge and skills to pass their courses and graduate. 

The OHRC recommends that organizations communicate that a special program exists, and the restrictions or limits on who is eligible. More information on special programs can be found in the OHRC’s Your guide to special programs and the Human Rights Code | Ontario Human Rights Commission.