Legal

 

In February 2026, Ontario’s Divisional Court released its decision in Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services, which highlights the importance of ensuring that human rights applicants have their cases heard.

In January 2026, the Superior Court of Justice released its decision in R v. Hussey, finding that officers from Peel Regional Police violated Jaheim Hussey’s section 7, 8, 9, and 10 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in obtaining evidence. In reaching their decision, the court relied on reports from the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) on anti-Black racism in policing. 

In 2016, Mr. Matthew Green made a complaint under the former Police Services Act (PSA). He alleged that he was racially profiled by a police officer at the Hamilton Police Service. The complaint was dismissed by a hearings officer appointed by Hamilton’s Chief of Police. 

  In a decision issued on April 2, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down sections of the Safe Streets Act that prohibit panhandling in certain circumstances, effective immediately. The decision marks a significant step forward in affirming Ontario’s obligation to respect the rights and dignity of all its residents, including the most marginalized.

 

  The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) is pleased that a recent Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) ruling confirmed it has jurisdiction to resolve Human Rights Code-related claims of discrimination by unionized employees.

  In a significant decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) found that Convention refugees should not face discriminatory barriers to accessing employment and contributing fully to Ontario society.

Settlement relating to Toronto Police Service Memorial Wall (Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Mark Saunders and Toronto Police Services Board) On November 11, 2015, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) filed an Application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) alleging discrimination in employment based on disability because of the Toronto Police Service’s (TPS) failure to include on its Memorial Wall officers who end their lives as a result of a mental health disability incurred in the line of duty.

Protecting the rights of trans persons in police custody: [Boyd Kodak] v. Toronto Police Service, Toronto Police Services Board and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services In July 2015, the OHRC intervened in a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Application concerning the treatment of trans persons in custody.

Background The applicant, Ian Cole, is a middle-aged man with a severe intellectual disability who lives in the community. To live in the community, Mr. Cole depends on the receipt of nursing services. The primary source of funding for the nursing services is his local Community Care Access Centre (CCAC). The maximum funding for nursing services is set out in a regulation made under the Home Care and Community Services Act, 1994.  At the time the application was filed, funding was available for nursing services to a maximum of four visits per day.

September 2016 - The OHRC intervened in Misetich v. Value Village, a case before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), involving allegations of discrimination on the basis of family status. The OHRC intervened to ensure that the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Johnstone v.

  Toronto — Hockey Canada, through its Ontario branches, ushers in a new era of transgender inclusion in time for the 2016-2017 hockey season by posting transgender inclusive policies. This step is part of a settlement agreement between Hockey Canada, on behalf of its Ontario members, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) and Jesse Thompson, a trans teenaged boy who played amateur hockey and courageously decided to take on the system.

Background This case involved a transgender boy, Jesse Thompson, who was denied access to the boys’ locker room the rest of his amateur hockey team used during the 2012-2013 hockey season. Jesse alleged that this resulted in him being ‘outed’ as trans, excluded from important team interaction and bonding, and exposed to harassment and bullying.

On May 31, 2016, the Court of Appeal for Ontario[1] unanimously upheld decisions by the HRTO, which had found that Sharon Fair (Fair) had been subjected to employment-related discrimination by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (the School Board) and had ordered compensation for special and for general damages ($30,000) as well as an order for Fair’s reinstatement. The HRTO’s decisions had earlier been upheld by the Divisional Court.

Employer distributing Bibles and religious advice Here is an example of a Code right (creed) versus a Charter right (freedom of religion and expression). encourages them to attend church meetings, gives each a Bible as a gift for Christmas and asks them if they share his opinions on a variety of matters. Employees have made it clear that they do not welcome or appreciate his comments and conduct in their workplace and that they plan to file a claim under the Ontario Human Rights Code. This could be argued as a competing rights situation because:

Muslim barber and woman denied service Read the following excerpt from a news clipping about a competing rights case. This is an example involving two Code grounds – creed versus sex. When you’re finished reading, answer the questions at the bottom of the page. You can also watch this CTV news video about the case.

Visual fire alarms and epilepsy

OHRC seeks Human Rights Tribunal Order against Ontario for failing to keep people with mental health disabilities out of segregation On August 25, 2020, the OHRC filed a motion with the HRTO for an order to hold Ontario accountable for failing to meet its legal obligations under both its Jahn v MCSCS settlement and the 2018 OHRC v Ontario Consent Order to keep prisoners with mental health disabilities out of segregation.

  Toronto – The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) is intervening in Roberts v. Toronto Police Services Board, an application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that raises the issues of racial profiling and discriminatory use of force.

Toronto - Navi Dhanota, represented by ARCH Disability Law Centre; York University and the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) have worked together to develop new documentation guidelines to access academic accommodations. The change in guidelines means that students will no longer have to disclose their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) diagnosis to register for mental health accommodations and supports.

Toronto - A settlement has been reached with the Ottawa Police in a case that alleged a female police officer was denied training, job placement and promotion opportunities because of her family status, sex and maternity leaves. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) intervened at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to address systemic barriers to promotion and advancement that women can face. 

The OHRC intervened in Swain v. MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP, a case which considered whether an equity partner in a law firm is protected against discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Commission intervened in Sarnia (City) v. River City Vineyard, an appeal heard by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in October 2014.

The OHRC sought leave to intervene in an appeal of the Federal Court’s decision to strike down a policy banning citizenship candidates from wearing face coverings during the citizenship oath. However, the Federal Court of Appeal denied the intervention motions of the OHRC along with all five of the other proposed interveners.

The allegations

Toronto - The Ontario Human Rights Commission is seeking leave to intervene as a friend of the Court in the “Neptune 4” case, being heard by the Toronto Police Service Disciplinary Tribunal. The action is part of a longstanding effort by the OHRC to tackle racial profiling – an issue at the heart of the Commission’s mandate to promote and advance respect for human rights in Ontario. 

In the past, people who experienced discrimination or harassment by police had to decide whether to file an officer misconduct complaint under the Police Services Act (“PSA”) or an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”).  The PSA provides a public complaints process, revised through amendments in 2009 which also established the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (“OIPRD”).  If they filed both, there was a real risk that their HRTO application would be dismissed. 

This Litigation and Inquiry Strategy sets out when and how the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) decides to conduct an inquiry, commence an application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), or intervene in a legal proceeding. It also includes information on the role of the OHRC within Ontario’s human rights system. 

Executive summary

Toronto – The mental health needs of prison inmates is the focus of a landmark settlement reached today.

On August 13th, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario released its decision on a human rights application, R.C. v. District School Board of Niagara.

Court File No. 33989 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN: N.S. APPELLANT (Appellant in the Court of Appeal for Ontario) -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Toronto – The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has made a formal request to the Ontario Municipal Board to intervene in the Lynwood Charlton Centre’s appeal of a decision by the City of Hamilton. This step is based on the OHRC’s concerns about human rights issues when the City denied Lynwood Charlton the zoning required to move housing for eight teenage girls with mental health issues. The OHRC will address the human rights issues arising from the City of Hamilton’s radial separation distance requirements, among other issues.

The OHRC intervened at the Federal Court in Seeley v. CN, a judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal had found that CN discriminated against Ms. Seeley by requiring her to relocate without considering her obligations as a parent. The Court has not yet released its decision. OHRC interventions OHRC interventions at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2011/12: Disability and housing:

May 2012 Introduction When the Ontario Human Rights Code became law in 1962, creed was one of the original grounds of discrimination.  This was likely to deal with the fact that at the time, there was significant overt discrimination against religious minorities.  Over time, Canada’s legal and societal approach to creed rights has evolved significantly.  However, it continues to be one of, if not the, most complex and controversial area of rights law.

The OHRC intervened at the Tribunal in a complaint by Ron Phipps – a case which raised some tough issues. The Tribunal ruled Phipps had been subjected to racial profiling in 2005 by a Toronto police officer. The officer stopped Phipps when he was delivering mail in an affluent Toronto neighbourhood, checked with a homeowner Phipps spoke to, trailed him and checked his identity with a White letter carrier.

Court File No. 33676 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE SASKATCHEWAN COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: SASKATCHEWAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPELLANT (Respondent in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal) -and-

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (TORONTO REGION) IN THE MATTER OF criminal proceedings against M---D.S. and M---L.S., currently at the preliminary inquiry stage in the Ontario Court of Justice before the Honourable Mr. Justice Weisman, wherein N.S. is the complainant;

For immediate publication Toronto - The Commission will appear as an intervener at the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton on February 14 and 15, 2008, in the case of R. v. Badesha. Mr. Badesha, a devout Sikh who, in observance of his faith, wears a turban, was charged with operating a motorcycle on a highway without wearing a helmet contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. Mr. Badesha is seeking to be excused from this requirement for religious reasons.

For immediate publication