Since disability was added to the Human Rights Code in 1981, it has become the ground most often cited in human rights complaints in Ontario. The OHRC has done much work in this area, but primarily on physical disability. In the past, there were few official complaints based on mental health, but we knew that they were out there. Now, as mental health issues emerge from the shadows and people feel more empowered to tell their stories, we’ve worked to better understand the discrimination that mental illness creates.
The Code protects people from discrimination and harassment because of past, present and perceived disabilities. “Disability” covers a broad range and degree of conditions, some visible and some not visible. A disability may have been present from birth, caused by an accident, or developed over time.
There are physical, mental and learning disabilities, mental disorders, hearing or vision disabilities, epilepsy, mental health disabilities and addictions, environmental sensitivities, and other conditions.
- Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities (2018)
- Policy on drug and alcohol testing (2016)
- Policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability (2016)
- Policy on preventing discrimination based on mental health disabilities and addictions (2014)
- Policy on environmental sensitivities (Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2014)
All Ontarians should enjoy the rights to inclusion, dignity and personal choices in their daily lives. While most of us take the ability to make these choices for granted, there are still some people who do not enjoy the level of rights that most of us do. Simple rights like being able to decide what clothing to wear or what to have for lunch are often not available to some of the most vulnerable members of our society – people with developmental disabilities. An initiative is underway to change this.
As the government moves forward with implementing the AODA, we continue to advocate for the Act and accompanying standards to meet the vision and the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
This included commenting on Charles Beer’s 2010 report, Creating a Path Forward – Report of the Independent Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) 2005.
1999 - The purpose of this consultation is to solicit your views on proposed revisions to the Guidelines on Assessing Accommodation Requirements for Persons with Disabilities. There are two substantive issues that are being considered for revision at this time. As well, the Commission is seeking your input as to any issues that should be addressed in the Guidelines.
July 2006 - For the past five years, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“the OHRC”) has been working closely with the restaurant industry to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities, older individuals, and families with young children. This is the OHRC’s final public report on this initiative.
March 2011 - The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) continues to have serious concerns with the Ontario Government’s most recent Proposed Integrated Accessibility Regulation released for public comment. The Government is also proposing related changes to Ontario Regulation 429/07, Customer Service, and to Ontario Regulation 629, Vehicles for the Transportation of Physically Disabled Passengers.
2000 - Everyone - employers, unions, and persons with disabilities - has a shared responsibility for making the accommodation process a success. Nothing forces a person to reveal a disability. However, when an accommodation is requested, everyone involved should cooperatively share information and actively seek solutions.
June 2006 - Over the past ten years, the Commission has been involved in 72 judicial review decisions, 32 decisions on appeal at the Divisional Court, 40 decisions from the Court of Appeal, and 17 from the Supreme Court of Canada. As of March 31, 2006, the Commission was litigating 462 cases at the Tribunal, eight cases before the Divisional Court, three in the Ontario Court of Appeal, and two before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Factum of the interveners the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
October 14, 1999 - Insurance practices routinely make distinctions based on, among other things, gender, age, marital status and disability. While many of these distinctions are based on valid business practices, others raise questions and concerns. These concerns relate to the existence of non-discriminatory alternatives to current practices and about respect for human rights.