The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) was established as an arm’s length agency of government in 1961 to prevent discrimination and to promote and advance human rights in Ontario. The OHRC is one pillar of Ontario’s human rights system, alongside the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC).
We believe that the way to realize this vision is to activate and engage the full range of our functions and powers under the Ontario Human Rights Code and our institutional expertise to dismantle the complex, intersecting dynamics and conditions that foster and perpetuate systemic discrimination.
Our mission is to promote and enforce human rights, to engage in relationships that embody the principles of dignity and respect, and to create a culture of human rights compliance and accountability. We act as a driver for social change based on principles of substantive equality. We accomplish our mission by exposing, challenging and ending entrenched and widespread structures and systems of discrimination through education, policy development, public inquiries and litigation.
We commit to embodying the following in all of our work and ways of working:
Commissioners have in-depth knowledge and expertise in human rights issues and issues relating to vulnerable populations, public policy, social values, and concepts of fairness, justice and public service.
Patricia DeGuire is a Woman-of-colour who pushes boundaries to ensure access to justice, equality and equity. She has a passion for the rule of law, and a commitment to public service, mentoring, coaching and legal education.
A member of the Ontario bar since February 1993, she is a professional adjudicator/arbitrator/mediator/coach, and was a Deputy Judge with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice – SCC Division. For over 25 years, she has served on provincial and federal tribunals, including Vice-Chair at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the Immigration Appeal Division/IRB, and the OLRB/Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal. She has also held senior leadership roles with JusticeNet, Legal Aid Ontario, the Ontario and Canadian Bar Associations, and the WLAO. Patricia was a member of the CABL, OBA, LSUC and WLAO mentorship programs and is an avid mentor and coach for many youths and adults in the legal and other professions. She is a constitutional law scholar; holds a Fellow of Chartered Insurance Professionals of Canada – Claims Major; and is co-author and co-editor of the first Canadian Insurance Dictionary.
Patricia served in leading roles with Black North Initiative and is a founder of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and the Black Law Student Association Canada. She also was a frequent lecturer at the Organization of Commonwealth Caribbean Bars Association International Law Forum, and with the Faculty of Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators. She is the founder of the Forum for Education for At-Risk Youths, and speaks often to students at all levels of schools. Patricia’s many career honours include the BLSA-C 2021 Impact Award, Canadian Bar Association 2020 Touchstone Award, CBA Rare-Find in April 2012, and the OBA’s Distinguished Service Award in 2020. She also received Legal Aid Ontario’s 2007 GEM Award for outstanding public service for providing access to justice access for low-income individuals and communities, the 2006 Law Society of Upper Canada Lincoln Alexander Award, and the BLSAC named the cup for the Julius Alexander Diversity Moot in her honour – the Patricia DeGuire Diversity Moot Cup.
Appointment: August 19, 2021 – August 18, 2023; August 19, 2023 - August 18, 2026
Jewel Amoah is a Canadian-Trinidadian human rights lawyer, activist and academic. Jewel has facilitated organizational change in various domestic and international public sector entities by raising awareness of harassment, discrimination, human rights and equity in teaching, learning and working environments. These environments have provided an opportunity to apply and expand her academic analysis of intersectionality and its impact on attaining equitable outcomes based on race, gender, gender identity and disability identities, among others.
Jewel is committed to research, advocacy and activism to inspire and produce systemic change, enhance access to justice and the full enjoyment of rights. She is a graduate of McMaster University, the University of Ottawa and the University of Cape Town. She lectured for four years at the University of the West Indies in Trinidad and is currently the Human Rights & Equity Advisor with the Halton District School Board.
Appointment: May 28, 2020 – May 27, 2025
Randall Arsenault is a 19-year veteran of the Toronto Police Service. Randall has experience in Youth Services, the Community Response Unit, Street Crime Unit, Criminal Investigative Bureau, Primary Response and has worked with the Aboriginal Peacekeeping Unit for over 20 years. Randall was also the Service's first Community Engagement Officer. An early adapter of social networking, Randall uses his global reach to engage and educate. Randall speaks at numerous conferences and has facilitated workshops on cyber bullying, effective engagement strategies and modern day policing.
Randall has taken leadership roles in many grassroots initiatives, and local and national charities. He is the recipient of awards and recognition for community outreach and engagement, and is an advocate for mental health awareness. Randall is a licensed carpenter, and in his spare time enjoys the outdoors.
Re-appointment: January 9, 2023 – January 8, 2025
Brian Eyolfson is a lawyer who practices alternative dispute resolution, providing independent investigation, mediation and adjudication services, primarily in the area of human rights.
He was a Commissioner with the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, from September 2016 to June 2019. Before that, Brian served as Acting Deputy Director with the Legal Services Branch of Ontario’s Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. From 2007 to 2016, he was a full-time Vice-Chair with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, where he adjudicated and mediated many human rights applications. Brian was a Senior Staff Lawyer with Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto (ALS) where he practiced human rights, Aboriginal and administrative law. He also represented ALS at the Ipperwash Inquiry. Brian also previously served as Counsel to the OHRC.
Brian has a B.Sc. in psychology and an LL.B. from Queen’s University, and an LL.M., specializing in administrative law, from Osgoode Hall Law School. He was called to the Ontario Bar in 1994. Brian is a member of Couchiching First Nation in Treaty #3 territory.
Appointment: November 12, 2022 – November 11, 2025
Violetta Igneski is a professor in ethics and political philosophy at McMaster University. For more than 18 years, her teaching and research have been focused on human rights, global justice and collective responsibility. She is a published author in leading journals and has presented her work at international conferences. In addition to her academic contributions, she has demonstrated a commitment to promoting an environment of respect and inclusion in various professional and administrative capacities, currently serving as Chair of the McMaster Research Ethics Board and Equity Officer in her department. She was awarded her PhD from the University of Toronto.
Re-appointment: January 9, 2023 – January 8, 2025
Gary Pieters is an educator and has served as a member (part-time) of the Minister of Education's Advisory Council on Special Education since 2017, and as a member (part-time) of the Toronto Islands Residential Trust Corporation since 2020. He is a principal with the Toronto District School Board, and is a commissioner and past president of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations. He attended the University of Toronto and earned his Bachelor of Arts (BA) in African Studies and Political Science as a member of New College; and his Bachelor of Education (BEd) and Master of Education (MEd) at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto (OISE/UT).
Appointment: March 25, 2023 – March 24, 2026
Sandi Bell identifies as a Black Indigenous woman with disabilities. Her passion to rid society of and prevent racism, discrimination, and oppression is more than a topic or research project; it is a way of life.
Sandi’s work in disability rights has been extensive and in many different areas. In the late seventies and eighties, as a school Trustee in Hamilton, she spearheaded initiatives including advocacy flowing from Bill 82 to ensure that children with disabilities previously denied public education were welcome with needed supports. She was a member of the Mental Health & Law Advisory Committee of the Canadian Mental Health Commission. More recently, she was appointed Chair of the AODA Health Care Standards Development Committee, which was tasked to recommend accessibility standards to the Ontario Minister of Seniors and Accessibility and the Minister of Health to reduce and prevent barriers in health care in Ontario hospitals. She also served for two terms as part-time Commissioner for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In her roles as a rights educator, mediator, Commissioner, and a member of the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, she gained a more fulsome understanding of the access to justice barriers that many individuals who experience discrimination routinely face.
The entirety of Sandi’s professional and volunteer endeavours have, in one way or another, been in pursuit of equality, human rights, social justice and inclusion for diverse and marginalized communities. With well over 30 years of experience in the areas of human rights, anti-racism, anti-oppression, and equity, she has worked closely with many different equality-seeking communities. The totality of her experiences offers her great insight into the experiences and impacts of discrimination based on one, multiple and intersecting protected grounds, and also on the larger context and the systemic barriers and issues that contribute to ongoing systemic discrimination.
Appointment: March 23, 2023 – March 24, 2025
Are ethics and philosophy important to understanding human rights? For 18 years, Commissioner Violetta Igneski has focused on this very intersection. “If I say there is a human right to have our basic needs met, for example, it actually means that someone has a duty to do something about it so I can have my right fulfilled,” explains Igneski.
An associate professor of Philosophy at McMaster University, Igneski teaches and researches human rights, global justice and collective responsibility. She tries to bring nuance to these areas by exploring questions about who has a duty to do something to whom, if human rights are actually going to be substantive things. “I’m lucky enough to have a voice, teach students and share topics that they might not have thought about,” says Igneski. “To think about, for example, do we have obligations to aid other people? Why would I have to sacrifice my interests to help other people? What would that mean?”
Igneski was the first in her family to go to university, and earned her PhD in Philosophy from the University of Toronto. She finds the ability to have such discussions in the classroom enriching. She sees them as a way to advocate for social justice.
“Fulfilling and respecting human rights depends on political and legal structures and institutions, but it’s also important to consider our personal decisions and this brings us into the sphere of ethics,” observes Igneski. Personal decisions, she elaborates, would include how we behave and act towards each other, how we treat other people, and how these actions take place within collective contexts.
“We need to think about human rights at the community, state and international levels, so we can coordinate our efforts and figure out how we can best implement those, and then divide up and allocate the tasks to each of us as individuals,” she says. “It is about asking what is required of me, as an individual in this collective context with other people.”
Igneski extends this idea to consider how research in ethics applies to her role at the OHRC, especially during a global pandemic. One of the things that has become evident during COVID-19 is an increase in people’s general awareness of inequalities in our society.
“These inequalities have been exacerbated by the pandemic,” says Igneski. “I think that there seems to be, with this awareness, some positive energy and so, some potential to change things. I see some new understanding of why there are social programs to help people in these situations, and also why they are inadequate.”
Through her role at the OHRC, Igneski hopes to build on this momentum. She wants us all to think about changemaking as we witness the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on people living in poverty, or living with disability, on racialized persons and Indigenous peoples.
Igneski also talks about how in 2020, the OHRC released its Policy statement on a human rights-based approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic, published a series of FAQs on rights and obligations, and was vocal about collecting human-rights based data to know the real impacts of this pandemic. Each of these initiatives shows how the OHRC continually examines issues from an intersecting and ethical standpoint.
“Poverty requires a lot more attention, and addressing it is currently a strategic priority of the OHRC. We see so many issues and factors undermining people’s access to healthcare, and poverty happens to overlap with many of these,” observes Igneski. “We have some understanding about the intersecting grounds, but working on communicating them in an effective manner and educating the public is one of the most important roles I see the OHRC playing.”
Igneski brings her applied theoretical knowledge to the OHRC with the hope of working with people on the ground and in the community. In addition to her academic contributions, she has shown her commitment to promoting an environment of respect and inclusion in various professional and administrative capacities, currently serving as Chair of the McMaster Research Ethics Board and Equity Officer in her department. She has authored several research papers on the duty to aid, ethical living and political philosophy. So she continues to live the intersection between ethics and human rights, to the benefit of all Ontarians.
“We all exist relative to something else. I think that’s really where we get our identity – who I am relative to each of you in age, race and culture?” says Commissioner Jewel Amoah, a Canadian-Trinidadian human rights lawyer, activist and academic. Amoah believes that we are hard-wired to function around comparisons, and discrimination happens when we structure those comparisons to disadvantage others.
Amoah is currently the Assistant Dean, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion at the John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design, University of Toronto. She has also worked with organizations both in Canada and abroad, providing extensive advice on gender equality and legislative reform.
While studying Literature and Political Science, and then going to law school, Amoah was inspired by the events unfolding at that time – the Oka Crisis (Kanesatake Resistance), Nelson Mandela’s release from prison and the Gulf War – which all exposed human rights challenges around the world. “In the geopolitical context that we live in, we are grossly advantaged by the disadvantages that many other people experience. And I think that fascinated me personally, and perhaps also inspired me in a professional sense,” adds Amoah. “I was intrigued by the politics of the world, and really fascinated by notions of identity, geography, rights, access to justice, and what all of that means.”
Amoah is a graduate of McMaster University, the University of Ottawa and the University of Cape Town, and lectured for four years at the University of the West Indies in Trinidad. Identity and equality issues are at the core of her research interests. In her doctoral dissertation, Amoah examined the impact of intersecting identities on attaining equality. She developed GRACE, an analytical tool to show how the intersection of gender, race, age and culture affect access to equality rights for girls subject to traditional or customary law as well as modern day civil law in South Africa. Her research pointed her to some socio-economic situations/cases in rural South Africa, where gender, race, age and culture could place an individual at a severe disadvantage since she views these like axes equality operates around.
“Think about GRACE as somebody’s name,” explains Amoah. “If you change any part of your name, it doesn’t mean the same thing. So just as if you remove any aspect of your identity, your outcome doesn’t remain the same. Why is it that a tweak in identity is going to change your outcomes, when if we are really committed to equality, we should all be entitled to the same outcome? Gender, race, age and culture are not really interchangeable – they're immutable, because they all combine to identify who we are and what we get access to in the moment.”
In her role as an OHRC Commissioner, Amoah brings her own experience as a racialized immigrant woman. She believes that issues of race, gender, identity and experiences need to be examined against the current context of post-colonialism, economics and natural environment. For example, she asks: “Why is the economic emphasis centered around North America and Europe, although the majority of people do not live there?”
She adds, “I stand in awe with these power differentials in the world – how they came to be and how they are sustained.” Even in her current role as an equity advisor, she sees how education is itself a factor of colonial structures and by extension, has created room for more inequities.
Amoah views the OHRC as a leader in the community and public arenas, and its policy role is about adapting systems to the reality and needs of individual identities, as well as collective community identities. “There’s a lot of inadvertent exclusion, because people say this is just the way we've always done things,” says Amoah. “And maybe you have always done things in a way that has always disadvantaged others, but now that we are aware of that continued disadvantage, we have an obligation to take responsibility for it.”
Amoah explains how the OHRC looks at ordinary events like policing, housing access, health care, or the right to read or play lacrosse, and identifies areas where things can be problematic: “I think the OHRC’s role is to raise awareness that equality is everywhere, but that means so is inequality. The OHRC’s job is to peel away that facade of niceness that we all like to hide behind... and help understand how we are being conscious and active in identifying and addressing inequality.”
Amoah feels that the background people come from is always important. “But more important is what you do to leverage or interpret those experiences in your background,” says Amoah. “Even if those backgrounds are ones of pure privilege and entitlement, that also has a lot of influence on how you view yourself and your role in the world. So yes, I think where we come from is largely influential in terms of who we become, but not necessarily determinative. At some point we do have to take responsibility for that.”
At first, Randall Arsenault may seem an unusual guy to be pegged for the title of a famous social media influencer. Having spent close to two decades as a police officer, Arsenault sees his social media outreach as a way to engage with the community and humanize the badge. “How I am online is exactly how I am as a person. If I don’t educate, I at least hope to entertain,” says Arsenault, who is famous for the way he spreads information about preventing crime. Arsenault’s work on addressing bullying in schools, homelessness and mental health are also important assets that he brings to his role as an OHRC Commissioner.
“I come from a policing family – my father was a police officer in Toronto,” says Arsenault. “But growing up, I never actually wanted to become a police officer. The reason for that is, I never really liked police culture.” What Arsenault didn’t like, as a child, were the collateral issues that could affect police officers – such as potential burnout, substance abuse, domestic violence and suicide.
Arsenault admits he was a rebel growing up and got into trouble with the police himself as a youth. He moved to British Columbia to stay with his grandmother and complete high school. “After high school, I was kind of lost,” recalls Arsenault. “I was on social assistance at two different times. I remember my friend and I would go to a McDonalds or Burger King drive-thru at closing time. I knew people who were paying at the drive thru would often drop change. We’d go and look for spare change, just as a way to get money and buy bread because we were hungry. I was rebellious.” Eventually he got an apprenticeship in construction, and that helped him get back on his feet and “stay out of trouble.”
When Arsenault moved back to Ontario, to explore opportunities during the construction boom, his father was working with the Aboriginal Peacekeeping Unit. He is proud of his Indigenous roots from his father’s side of the family, which he discovered only after his father started doing work with the Aboriginal Peacekeeping Unit.
“That was the first time I really saw my dad in a different role, where he was very proactive and giving back to the community,” says Arsenault. The community engagement side to policing intrigued him and that pushed him to apply for the police service.
“I love my job as a police officer,” says Arsenault. Reflecting on how policing has changed since his father was an officer, Arsenault notes, “We’re constantly evolving, which is a good thing. This needs to happen for the public and it needs to happen for us.”
Arsenault has experience in Youth Services, the Community Response Unit, Street Crime Unit, Criminal Investigative Bureau, Primary Response and has worked with the Aboriginal Peacekeeping Unit. He was also the Service's first Community Engagement Officer.
Arsenault attributes his growing social media presence to the fact that he remains authentic and “does not put on a façade.” “I don’t take things too seriously, I get involved with the community and I challenge the status quo, even within the police service. Sometimes that doesn’t always go over very well, but it is what it is, and I’m okay with that.”
In between sharing jokes and funny videos on social media, Arsenault also uses crucial data such as crime statistics in neighbourhoods and stories about school safety to highlight important information.
In his role as a human rights commissioner, Arsenault has been vocal about the cascading effects that mental health has on people living with homelessness and addictions. "Someone asked me a while ago, what do you want to work on as a human rights commissioner? And they all kind of fall into one category. If I say mental health, I mean homelessness and I mean drug use. Because you know, they all affect the other," says Arsenault.
He adds, “It’s important for me to bring to the Commission a voice perhaps that’s not expected from an officer.” He has been subject to public scrutiny ever since he took on the role at the OHRC – which he welcomes as he continues to break stereotypes and challenge the status quo.
“I’ve been exposed to police culture and been around cops, my entire life. I’ve seen a good way of doing things and a bad way of doing things,” says Arsenault. He has built his credibility, both online and on the ground, by doing things the good and authentic way – by fostering community relationships or networks, by spreading information about crime prevention, and by adding a novel approach to both policing and human rights.
Gary Pieters, an educator, brings his own lived and professional experience as a Black Canadian that has driven him to dismantle systemic inequity. “My twin sibling and I were raised in a single-grandparent home having very limited social resources,” says Pieters. “Students come to school with lived experiences of poverty, and poverty can impact on access to resources. So when you look at barriers and poverty, it leads you to look at systems with a poverty-reduction lens.”
Before becoming an educator, Pieters held a variety of public and private sector jobs and volunteer experiences. He brings this history to the OHRC, along with skill sets cultivated from over two decades of leadership roles in equity initiatives in the education sector as teacher, vice-principal and principal.
Pieters first experienced Ontario’s human rights system as a complainant, when he felt the need to call out racism and vindicate his own rights. From being a complainant to becoming a Commissioner, Pieters talks about the importance of embedding human rights into all areas of life, especially education. He experienced long standing anti-Black racism in the public school system in Toronto as a student in the 1980s that continued into his career as educator. “When students come into the classroom, it's not just the students. It's the parents, and it's the whole community that comes into school. That school is at the heart of the community,” he says.
Pieters strongly believes that education should provide equitable access to opportunity. He explains, “When students come to school, the school can either teach for belonging and citizenship, or it can marginalize students. So my whole philosophy around education is teaching from an inclusive lens, and that means dismantling any individual and systemic barriers that hinder students and communities.”
Another issue he brings up is language. English is not the first language for many people in diverse metropolitan cities. “There’s auditory discrimination, where people are discriminated against based on their tone or accent,” says Pieters. In situations where language can be a barrier, we need to rethink what and how we teach children, young people and adults in order to empower them with an amplified lens “to be self-advocates, who advocate for themselves and their needs. A basic fundamental of human rights and social justice is self-advocacy.”
Pieters believes that the human rights landscape we exist in is complex and ever-evolving. “There is a significant rise in racism, racial profiling, Islamophobia, homophobia and anti-Asian racism,” says Pieters. “Whether it is in schools or communities, people need to be able to add language to their own experiences.” He also oversaw a program on teaching young people how to identify, understand, address and prevent gender-based violence, sexism and exclusion.
Every year during Pride month, the issue of raising the flag within some denominational schools and district school boards has come up for debate. This has re-traumatized LGBTQ2S+ students, families and communities. “Raising the flag is extremely important because it affirms the need for inclusion – that everyone belongs, everyone’s rights are centred in our Human Rights Code,” says Pieters.
“I want to be a consequential Commissioner in the sense that I want to leave a lasting positive impact on the human rights landscape of Ontario,” says Pieters. He is an action-oriented leader who understands the challenges of living with and facing discrimination, and defending his rights to be free from it. “I will bring to life that type of passion and that type of energy, to invigorate the whole concept of a society where everyone can succeed and prosper, with respect for their fundamental human rights, to flourish and thrive,” says Pieters.
Pieters is also keen to tap into new areas where human rights needs to be explored. Examples are young people and access to justice, and the acceleration of technology, artificial intelligence and privacy.
“Incarceration rates are a big issue, and young people (especially Indigenous, Black and racialized) with limited resources are incarcerated at a higher rate,” says Pieters. He also notes the school-to-prison pipeline is an issue that needs to be looked at. He adds, “Racialized youth are disproportionately suspended from schools. When you are pushing children out of school, it denies them access to education and it puts them into harm’s way, and harm’s way is an open-ended concept.”
Considering COVID-19, Pieters observes how people are increasingly learning, working, shopping and banking from home. “Access to the Internet and connectivity and devices has become a human rights issue, especially for people who are poor, and cannot afford the cost of Internet, the cost of a device, the monthly connectivity rates whether it's for their phone bill or the data.”
Pieters spends his leisure time looking at and photographing Toronto’s skylines, walking or cycling by the water. He volunteers for community projects and provides his expertise for things that matter. “My goal is to help people develop a human rights mindset. It is embedded into the way we think, act and treat each other.”
Pieters has a social media presence and likes to tweet items that interest him on his Twitter account.
Five years ago, Brian Eyolfson was appointed as a Commissioner with the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. “My job, through this National Inquiry, was to carry out a very large mandate in a way that put family members and survivors of violence first, and in a way that was trauma-informed, decolonizing and inclusive,” says Eyolfson, a Two-Spirit member of Couchiching First Nation in Treaty #3 territory.
“It was a privilege to be involved in the process and to witness the courage, the strength and the resilience of so many family members and survivors who shared their truths with the National Inquiry, and many who shared publicly with everyone in Canada at public hearings.” Listening to the stories and lived experiences of the survivors has had a profound impact on Eyolfson. It reinforced his understanding of the many systemic practices that continue to affect the lives of Indigenous people, and create vulnerability for Indigenous women, girls, 2SLGBTQQIA people.
“There are things that can be done to change this,” says Eyolfson. “Education and awareness are important. We also need political will and for everybody in society to take action.”
This Inquiry’s 2019 final report identified overarching findings including colonial violence, human rights abuses, racism and most notably, genocide. “We also found that an absolute paradigm shift is required to dismantle colonialism within Canadian society, and from all levels of government and public institutions. Ideologies and instruments of colonialism, racism and misogyny, past and present, must be rejected,” says Eyolfson.
Eyolfson grew up in Fort Frances in northwestern Ontario. He pursued an undergraduate degree in psychology and volunteered with organizations addressing mental health issues. Around the same time, equality rights provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect. Also, the provisions of the Indian Act that took Indian status away from women who married non-status men, were amended. Eyolfson started to reflect more on the impacts of colonialism on his community.
“I saw community disconnect for a lot of people, due to direct sex discrimination and intergenerational sex discrimination. I also thought a lot about the impact that residential schools had on Indigenous families and communities, as my maternal grandparents had attended residential school,” says Eyolfson.
His interest in human rights and Indigenous rights influenced him to become a lawyer, and he now brings over two decades of legal experience to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). He practices alternative dispute resolution and provides independent investigation, mediation and adjudication services, primarily in the area of human rights.
Eyolfson sees public inquiries as an effective way to gather evidence, address issues and create positive change. From his own experiences as a Commissioner on the National Inquiry and his extensive background in Indigenous reconciliation, Eyolfson believes that people with lived experience have the true expertise and need to be meaningfully heard.
“Public inquiries can be educational, can create awareness and shed light on important issues,” says Eyolfson. “For the OHRC, public inquiries can be an effective means to gather the necessary evidence and information that is needed to create recommendations for positive change in the area of human rights, such as improving policies and practices to prevent and eliminate discrimination and create equitable opportunities or resolve situations of conflict.”
Eyolfson also has considerable knowledge of issues affecting different communities across Ontario, particularly Indigenous peoples and communities. As the co-chair of the OHRC’s Indigenous Reconciliation Advisory Group, he has been actively working with Indigenous peoples and communities to advance reconciliation and substantive equality.
“I think it’s really important to have Indigenous peoples guide or lead the conversation on reconciliation,” says Eyolfson. “I think the Commission needs to listen to build relationships… it needs to meaningfully listen to the lived experience of Indigenous peoples and what they think would be solutions. I think it’s about centring the voices of Indigenous peoples and working along with them in a respectful way.”
Before serving as a Commissioner with the National Inquiry, Eyolfson was the Acting Deputy Director with the Legal Services Branch of Ontario’s Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. From 2007 to 2016, he was a full-time Vice-Chair with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, where he adjudicated and mediated many human rights applications. Eyolfson was also a senior staff lawyer with Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto (ALS), where he practiced human rights, Aboriginal and administrative law. He represented ALS at the Ipperwash Inquiry, and before that was counsel with the OHRC.
Throughout his career, Brian Eyolfson has focused on embedding lived experience in human rights work. This focus, and his own unique lived experiences, are invaluable assets to his guidance as an OHRC Commissioner.
November 2014
Chief Commissioner
Executive Director
Chief Administrative Officer – Centralized Services Branch
Manager - Communications & Issues Management
Director Policy, Education, Monitoring & Outreach
Manager – Legal Services and Inquiries (Designated Bilingual)
Promoting human rights is key to developing a culture where everyone can play a part as we move to achieving the vision of society described in the Preamble to the Human Rights Code. This vision is consistent with that described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of Canada's Constitution. It is a vision where everyone feels that they are an important part of the community and that they are able to participate fully to its development and well-being while respecting and taking responsibility for the rights of others.
The Commission engages in a wide range of educational activities and partnership initiatives, such as public awareness campaigns, presentations, workshops and conferences. It also engages in national and international cooperation, participates in intergovernmental task forces and receives delegations from around the world.
In keeping with its responsibility to promote understanding and awareness of and compliance with the Code, the Commission has an important mandate to conduct public education throughout the province. Public education is delivered primarily through the Commission's Web site, publications, public awareness campaigns, speaking engagements and presence at community events.
In addition, the Commission has also adopted an e-learning strategy as part of its overall public education program. We will be posting Code-related computer-based tools on this site in the near future.
In evaluating requests for speakers, the Commission focuses its resources on events and initiatives that are consistent with its strategic priorities and have the potential to: promote systemic prevention of Code violations and advancement of human rights; significantly enhance the Commission's relationship with strategic or underserved sectors; "train trainers" to have a sustainable "multiplier" effect in the organization; and reduce discrimination across a sector and/or to decrease the incidence of formal human rights complaints.
The Commission does not have the capacity to accept all requests. In such instances, the Commission tries to work with the organization or individual to help meet their needs in other ways through Commission resources or referral to other organizations.
This Web site provides the public with access to a wide array of information and educational resources including: an overview of the Human Rights Code and the Commission's mission; description of the complaint process; policies, plain language guides, public inquiry reports and Commission submissions; public education resources as well as news releases. The Commission's Web site is an increasingly important tool in the promotion of human rights in Ontario and ensures it is compatible with international accessibility standards for persons with disabilities and that documents are posted in both English and French in accordance with Ontario's French Language Services Act.
Based on its current strategic priorities, the Commission provides educational sessions to employers, unions, professional associations, community organizations and other groups who are partners with us in striving to develop a culture of human rights.
To invite someone from the Commission to speak to your group, see the section on Requesting Public Education from the Commission.
The Commission meets with delegations, intergovernmental organizations and staff from human rights commissions around the world to exchange ideas with them about administrative procedures and to share our common experiences in teaching people about human rights and enforcing human rights laws in civil society.
To inquire about the possibility of meeting with the Commission for this purpose, please contact us at:
Policy, Education, Monitoring and Outreach Branch (PEMO)
Ontario Human Rights Commission
180 Dundas Street West, 9th Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2R9
Attention: Director
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.
Ontario Human Rights Commission
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) works to promote, protect, and advance human rights in Ontario. The Human Rights Code provides a range of different tools that the OHRC may use, including, among others, policy development, research, public education and training, human rights inquiries, and legal action.
The OHRC has unique legal powers under the Human Rights Code. It may conduct inquiries, make an application (a complaint) directly to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) alleging discrimination, or intervene in applications before the HRTO. The OHRC may also take part in cases before other administrative tribunals and courts. (The OHRC’s powers under the Code, are set out here: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h19#BK33).).
The OHRC is part of Ontario’s human rights system, along with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRSLC). These are separate agencies with different roles.
The OHRC does not determine whether the Code has been violated and cannot make legally binding orders to remedy such violations. As set out in more detail below, that is the role of the HRTO.
The OHRC does not provide legal advice or representation to individuals. As set out in more detail below, that is the role of the HRLSC.
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “HRTO”) hears applications and decides if someone’s human rights, under the Human Rights Code, have been violated. The HRTO has the power to make orders to remedy a violation of the Code. These functions are the role of the HRTO. The OHRC does not have power over the procedures, operations, and decisions of the HRTO.
You should contact the HRTO if:
For more information about the HRTO:
The Human Rights Legal Support Centre (the "HRLSC") provides advice to people who believe they have experienced discrimination, helps people file applications with the HRTO, and may provide legal representation at the HRTO. The OHRC does not provide legal advice or representation to individuals or organizations.
You should contact the HRLSC if:
Contacting the Human Rights Legal Support Centre is a good first step for people who are unsure what to do or where to start.
For more information about the HRLSC:
Inquiries
Under section 31 of the Code the OHRC can conduct an inquiry into incidents or conditions of tension or conflict in a community, institution, or sector of the economy, and make recommendations, and/or encourage and co-ordinate plans, programs and activities to reduce or prevent such incidents or sources of tension or conflict. The OHRC can also conduct inquiries into whether programs, policy and practices made under statute are consistent with the Code.
Inquiries can take many forms. They can be large or small, simple, or complex. They can include:
The OHRC may make recommendations during and/or at the completion of an inquiry. Recommendations may include suggested changes to laws, policies, practices, or conduct.
The OHRC may initiate an inquiry when it believes that it is in the public interest to do so.
Commission-initiated Applications
Under section 35 of the Code, the OHRC may make its own applications directly to the HRTO to allege discrimination and ask for an HRTO order. In these applications, the OHRC has the same role as an applicant in bringing evidence to show that discrimination has occurred and making arguments related to remedies. The HRTO is still in charge of deciding whether discrimination occurred.
In a Commission-Initiated Application, the OHRC represents the public interest, not a specific individual. Individual remedies, such as compensation are not available in a Commission-initiated application.
Legal Interventions
The OHRC can participate in applications at the HRTO that someone else has filed. Section 37 of the Code says the OHRC may intervene either on terms set by the HRTO or as a full party if the applicant gives their permission. The OHRC’s participation might include calling evidence, cross-examining witnesses, and presenting written and oral submissions to the HRTO. The OHRC might be involved in the whole case or only a narrow set of issues.
When the OHRC intervenes in a legal proceeding, its role is to represent the public interest. The OHRC does not take the role of representing the applicant or providing assistance in arguing their case. Applicants may be self-represented, represented by the HRLSC or by another lawyer. The OHRC might take a position that is different from the applicant’s position.
The OHRC can only intervene at the HRTO if there is an active application. The OHRC does not have the power to overturn findings and decisions made by the HRTO (although it may intervene in a reconsideration, judicial review, or appeal of such decisions).
The OHRC may intervene in cases at other Tribunals and courts, such as the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. However, this requires permission from those tribunals or courts.
How does the OHRC choose which cases to be involved with?
The OHRC regularly establishes a multi-year Strategic Plan that sets high level goals and priority issues to meet its statutory mandate. However, human rights cases and issues for inquiry often emerge that are clearly important but may not fall within the OHRC’s current priority areas.
The OHRC looks at new issues on a case-by-case basis to decide if a response is appropriate, including whether an inquiry, intervention, or Commission-initiated application at the HRTO is called for.
In undertaking this review, the OHRC considers whether its involvement:
The OHRC receives many requests from the public and cannot become involved in every request that reflects these considerations. Regardless of the OHRC’s involvement individuals alleging discrimination can make an application to the HRTO and receive support from the HRLSC.
How does the OHRC spot emerging issues?
The OHRC’s Issues Management team monitors developments in human rights and related social issues, proposed provincial legislation, noteworthy the HRTO and court decisions, and other factors that could affect human rights in Ontario. The OHRC identifies potential matters for litigation or inquiry through:
To make a request contact info@ohrc.on.ca. Please include the following:
Please note that it takes time for the OHRC to assess requests and determine whether it will become involved and prepare. The OHRC may be unable to become involved if a request is received too close to a deadline such as a HRTO hearing.
Inquiries
Commission-Initiated Applications
Interventions
We, the staff of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, in full compliance with the spirit, intent and provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code, are committed to providing the highest quality customer service.
This statement of our commitment reflects our best efforts to provide excellent customer service, within the limits of our resources, by:
This document outlines the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s (OHRC) multi-year AODA accessibility plan (accessibility plan) for 2020–21 – 2025–26 to:
The OHRC supports the full inclusion of persons with disabilities as set out in the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code), the OHRC’s Policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA). The Code has primacy over the AODA. The OHRC is committed to complying with the accessibility standards set out in the AODA’s Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR) and the duty to accommodate disability related needs under the Code.
Ontario Regulation 191/11: Integrated Accessibility Standards (IASR) under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) include accessibility standards for:
Section 4 of the IASR requires the Government of Ontario and designated public sector organizations, including the OHRC, to create, maintain and make publicly available a multi-year accessibility plan. The accessibility plan must be created, reviewed and updated in consultation with persons with disabilities. The accessibility plan must also be reviewed at least once every five years, and all organizations are required to report annually on the progress they have made to implement the accessibility plan and comply with the IASR. The status reports must be made available to the public.
The Ontario Public Service’s 2017–21 OPS Multi-Year Accessibility Plan describes the OPS’ commitment to accessibility, and the steps the government is taking to prevent and remove barriers for persons with disabilities in employment, services and in making policy. The OPS accessibility plan outlines the government’s strategies to prevent, identify and remove barriers for persons with disabilities. The Ministry of the Attorney General’s Accessibility for People with Disabilities Plan sets out what the ministry plans to do to prevent and remove barriers for persons with disabilities, and what steps it is taking to comply with the requirements set out in the AODA and its regulations.
The OHRC has considered these requirements and plans in the development of its accessibility plan.
In accordance with section 3 of the IASR, and our mandate under section 29 of the Code, we have established and are also guided by our policies and other functions that promote, protect and advance understanding of human rights for people with disabilities.
For example, the OHRC has published various policies and reports including its Policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability, Minds that Matter: Report on the consultation on human rights, mental health and addictions, and its Policy on preventing discrimination based on mental health disabilities and addictions. The OHRC has also published eLearning modules on Ableism and discrimination based on disability, Human rights and the duty to accommodate and Working Together: The Code and the AODA.
The OHRC accessibility plan applies to:
The OHRC is committed to advancing the human rights of persons with disabilities using our mandate under the Code, through activities such as public education, policy development, public inquiries and litigation.
The OHRC makes the following commitments to meet the goal of being an organization that is fully accessible to persons with disabilities. The OHRC’s activities will help us comply with the Code, the AODA and the IASR in the following areas:
In accordance with Part IV.2 of the IASR, the OHRC is committed to ensuring that all individuals have access to and can effectively use its services, goods and facilities. The OHRC has the following in place to meet its obligations and commitments:
In consultation with people with disabilities, the OHRC will review and make any necessary changes to improve the accessibility of its:
In accordance with Part II of the IASR, the OHRC is committed to making sure its information and communications systems and products are accessible to persons with disabilities.
In consultation with people with disabilities, the OHRC will review and make any necessary changes to improve the accessibility of its:
In accordance with Part III of the IASR, the OHRC is committed to ensuring that the recruitment process for new staff is accessible.
In consultation with people with disabilities, the OHRC will review and make any necessary changes to improve the accessibility of its employment policies and practices (e.g. employee recruitment, accommodation procedures and plans) in accordance with Part II of the IASR as well as Ontario Public Service policies including making sure time limits for recruitment tests are designed inclusively and do not generally adversely affect candidates with disabilities, and accommodations are available to meet the disability-related need for more time.
In accordance with sections 3 and 80.49 of the IASR, the OHRC is committed to making sure that all staff and commissioners remain informed about their rights and responsibilities under the Code, the AODA and the IASR by providing ongoing training.
In consultation with people with disabilities, the OHRC will review and make any necessary changes to improve its staff and Commissioner training on IASR requirements, including making sure:
In accordance with section 5 of the IASR, the OHRC is committed to incorporating accessibility design, criteria and features when procuring or acquiring goods, services or facilities.
In consultation with people with disabilities, the OHRC will review and make any necessary changes to improve the accessibility of its procurement practices.
The OHRC implemented the following initiatives as part of its 2014–19 Multi-year AODA accessibility plan:
In accordance with section 11 of the IASR, the OHRC encourages feedback about its accessibility, including customer service, its website, employment practices, procurement, etc. Feedback can be submitted using an online request form, available at: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/contact/ohrc-feedback. Feedback can also be made in writing, by telephone, TTY or email to:
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Executive Director’s Office
180 Dundas Street West, Suite 900
Toronto, ON M7A 2R9
Tel: 416-314-4562
Toll Free: 1-800-387-9080
Fax: 416-325-2004
TTY Local: 416-326-0603
TTY Toll Free: 1-800-308-5561
Email: info@ohrc.on.ca
The Executive Director or a delegate will review the customer feedback, investigate the situation, try to resolve it and provide a response within 14 business days of receiving the information.
The OHRC will report publicly through our annual report about our progress on implementing this accessibility plan, our commitments to identify and remove barriers for persons with disabilities, and the steps we have taken to comply with the requirements of the IASR.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
between The Attorney General of Ontario and
The Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission,
on behalf of the Commission
The Minister and the Chief Commissioner share a commitment to the principles captured in the preamble to Ontario's Human Rights Code, which recognizes the importance of and the need to reflect relevant international human rights principles, and agree that a strong and independent Ontario Human Rights Commission, capable of fulfilling its mandate efficiently and effectively, contributes substantially to the realization of those principles. (Appendix I sets out, for convenience, the relevant portions of the preamble to the Code.) To that end, the Minister and Chief Commissioner share the goal of establishing a relationship that ensures the responsible administration of the Commission and the fulfillment of its legislative mandate in a manner consistent with the effective and efficient use of public resources and with the Commission's independent role in facilitating compliance with the Code.
The Minister and the Chief Commissioner are also committed to ensuring the flow of appropriate information between the Ministry and the Commission to assist each in fulfilling its proper role in respect of the Code.
In this Memorandum of Understanding:
“AAD” means the Agencies and Appointments Directive
"Chief Commissioner" means the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council pursuant to section 27 of the Code and includes any Acting Chief Commissioner appointed temporarily under section 28 of the Code;
"Code" means the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended from time to time;
"Commission" means the statutory body known as the Ontario Human Rights Commission and comprising the appointed members of the Commission and the public servants appointed under the Public Service of Ontario Act to carry out the Commission's administrative and operational powers and obligations;
"Commissioners" means the members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to the Commission pursuant to section 27 of the Code;
"Deputy Minister" means the deputy minister of the Ministry;
"Executive Director" means the Executive Director of the Commission;
"FIPPA" means the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, as amended from time to time;
“HRLSC” means the Human Rights Legal Support Centre;
"MBC" means Management Board of Cabinet;
"MOU" means Memorandum of Understanding;
"Minister" means the Attorney General of Ontario, or such other minister to whom the Lieutenant Governor in Council may subsequently assign ministerial responsibility for the Code;
"Ministry" means the ministry led from time to time by the Minister;
"PSOA" means the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 35, Schedule A, as it may be amended from time to time;
"TB" means the Treasury Board of Ontario; and
"Tribunal" means the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
The purpose of this MOU is to:
The parties acknowledge and agree to the following principles.
This MOU is to be construed and applied in a manner consistent with its guiding principles, with the Code and any relevant regulations and international human rights principles that guide development and protection of effective national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights and of ensuring the pluralism of their membership and their independence. It does not modify, limit or interfere with the responsibilities of any of its parties as established by law. In case of conflict between this MOU and any statute (including the Code) or regulation, the statute or regulation prevails to the extent of the conflict. Section 47(2) of the Code gives the Code presumptive primacy over other legislation in case of conflict
The Deputy Minister is accountable to the Minister for the performance of the Ministry in providing administrative support to the Commission in fulfilling its mandate and for carrying out the roles and responsibilities assigned to him or her by the Minister, by TB/MBC and Ministry of Finance directives and by this MOU.
Commission staff report and are accountable to the Executive Director for their performance.
The Chief Commissioner is responsible for ensuring that appointees and staff of the Commission are informed of the conflict of interest rules, including the rules on political activity, that govern the Commission.
The Minister is responsible for:
The Chief Commissioner is responsible for:
The Commissioners are responsible for:
Individual Commissioners are also responsible for carrying out such responsibilities of the Chief Commissioner as he or she may delegate to them under section 27(12) of the Code, subject to such conditions as the Chief Commissioner may prescribe.
The Deputy Minister is responsible for:
In addition to being the ethics executive for the Commission for purposes of the PSOA, the Executive Director is responsible for:
The parties to this MOU recognize that the timely exchange of information on the operations and administration of the Commission is essential to the Minister in meeting his or her responsibilities to report and respond to the Legislative Assembly on the affairs of the Commission. They recognize, as well, that it is essential that the Chief Commissioner be kept informed about government initiatives and broad policy directions that may affect the Commission’s mandate and functions.
The Minister and the Chief Commissioner therefore agree as follows.
The Chief Commissioner shall ensure that the Commission and its staff operate in accordance with the Code, TB/MBC and Ministry of Finance directives, Public Service Commission directives under the PSOA and Ministry financial and administrative policies and procedures.
The Commission has in place a formal process, consistent with the government’s service quality standards, for responding to complaints about the quality of the services it provides. Its annual Business Plan shall include performance measures and targets in respect of customer service and complaint response. This process is separate from any statutory provisions about review or reconsideration of any exercise of the Commission’s statutory powers.
The Chief Commissioner shall provide, on instruction from the Minister of Finance, the Commission’s financial information for consolidation into the Public Accounts. In addition, he or she shall provide annual financial statements to the Minister and shall include them as part of the Commission’s annual report.
The Commission is not required to pay GST.
The government’s Protection Program covers the Commission.
Affirmed by:
Patricia DeGuire, Chief Commissioner
The Honourable Doug Downey,
Attorney General of Ontario
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations;
And Whereas it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the Province;
And Whereas these principles have been confirmed in Ontario by a number of enactments of the Legislature and it is desirable to revise and extend the protection of human rights in Ontario;
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
. . .
The Commission
27. (1) The Ontario Human Rights Commission is continued under the name Ontario Human Rights Commission in English and Commission ontarienne des droits de la personne in French. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Composition
(2) The Commission shall be composed of such persons as are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Appointment
(3) Every person appointed to the Commission shall have knowledge, experience or training with respect to human rights law and issues. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Criteria
(4) In the appointment of persons to the Commission under subsection (2), the importance of reflecting, in the composition of the Commission as a whole, the diversity of Ontario’s population shall be recognized. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Chief Commissioner
(5) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall designate a member of the Commission as Chief Commissioner. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Powers and duties of Chief Commissioner
(6) The Chief Commissioner shall direct the Commission and exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to the Chief Commissioner by or under this Act. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Term of office
(7) The Chief Commissioner and other members of the Commission shall hold office for such term as may be specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Remuneration
(8) The Chief Commissioner and other members of the Commission shall be paid such remuneration and allowance for expenses as are fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Employees
(9) The Commission may appoint such employees as it considers necessary for the proper conduct of its affairs and the employees shall be appointed under the Public Service Act. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Note: On the later of the day the Statutes of Ontario, 2006, chapter 35, Schedule C, section 132 comes into force and the day the Statutes of Ontario, 2006, chapter 30, section 4 comes into force, subsection (9) is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2006, chapter 35, Schedule C, subsection 132 (5) by striking out “the Public Service Act” at the end and substituting “Part III of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006”. See: 2006, c. 35, Sched. C, ss. 132 (5), 137 (1).
Evidence obtained in performance of duties
(10) A member of the Commission shall not be required to give testimony in a civil suit or any proceeding as to information obtained in the performance of duties under this Act. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Same, employees
(11) An employee of the Commission shall not be required to give testimony in a civil suit or any proceeding other than a proceeding under this Act as to information obtained in the performance of duties under this Act. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Delegation
(12) The Chief Commissioner may in writing delegate any of his or her powers, duties or functions under this Act to any member of the Anti-Racism Secretariat, the Disability Rights Secretariat or an advisory group or to any other member of the Commission, subject to such conditions as the Chief Commissioner may set out in the delegation. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Divisions
(13) The Commission may authorize any function of the Commission to be performed by a division of the Commission composed of at least three members of the Commission. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Acting Chief Commissioner
28. (1) If the Chief Commissioner dies, resigns or is unable or neglects to perform his or her duties, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint an Acting Chief Commissioner to hold office for such period as may be specified in the appointment. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Same
(2) An Acting Chief Commissioner shall perform the duties and have the powers of the Chief Commissioner and shall be paid such remuneration and allowance for expenses as are fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Functions of Commission
29. The functions of the Commission are to promote and advance respect for human rights in Ontario, to protect human rights in Ontario and, recognizing that it is in the public interest to do so and that it is the Commission’s duty to protect the public interest, to identify and promote the elimination of discriminatory practices and, more specifically,
Commission policies
30. The Commission may approve policies prepared and published by the Commission to provide guidance in the application of Parts I and II. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
. . .
Annual report
31.6 (1) Every year, the Commission shall prepare an annual report on the affairs of the Commission that occurred during the 12-month period ending on March 31 of each year. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Report to Speaker
(2) The Commission shall submit the report to the Speaker of the Assembly no later than on June 30 in each year who shall cause the report to be laid before the Assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Copy to Minister
(3) The Commission shall give a copy of the report to the Minister at least 30 days before it is submitted to the Speaker under subsection (2). 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Other reports
31.7 In addition to the annual report, the Commission may make any other reports respecting the state of human rights in Ontario and the affairs of the Commission as it considers appropriate, and may present such reports to the public or any other person it considers appropriate. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
See: 2006, c. 30, ss. 4, 12 (2).
Public Services of Ontario Act, 2006
Public Service Commission
August, 2007
[excerpts]
. . .
Public Service Commission
Delegation of powers, duties and functions
to
prescribed individuals and chairs and deputy ministers
in respect of public servants appointed to work in
Commission public bodies
Pursuant to subsections 44(4), (5), (9) and (10) and clause 55(1)(c) of the
Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 (PSOA)
NOTE
PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2, AND ONLY ONE OF PART A, B, C OR D, SHALL APPLY TO ANY
ONE COMMISSION PUBLIC BODY (THEREFORE, PARTS A, B, C AND D EACH BEGINS
WITH PARAGRAPH #3)
. . .
Delegation to deputy ministers and prescribed individuals in respect of public servants appointed to work in a Commission public body pursuant to PSOA subsections 44(4), (5), (9), (10)
PART A: For use where delegations are to a PSC delegate who is a public servant in the Senior Management Group and to a deputy minister
PSOA Powers, Duties and Functions |
In Relation To |
Subsections 32(2), (3) and (4) |
Appointing persons to employment by the Crown, for a fixed term or otherwise, to work in a Commission public body, as prescribed under clause 8 (1)(b) of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, in classifications other than Senior Management Group 3 or 4, Information Technology Executive 3 or 4, Financial Management and Control Group 3 or Crown Counsel 5
Reappointing for one or more further terms persons appointed for a fixed term |
Section 34 |
Imposing disciplinary measures for cause (including suspension but not dismissal) |
Subsection 36(1) |
Conducting an investigation to determine cause for the purposes of section 34 |
Subsection 36(2) |
Pending the conclusion of an investigation, suspending the public servant for a period not exceeding the period prescribed under clause 55(1)(a) |
Subsection 36(3) |
Withholding the public servant’s salary, wages or any other remuneration, including benefits, during the suspension under section 36; if he or she considers it appropriate to do so, and at the end of the investigation, reimbursing amounts that were withheld if he or she considers it appropriate to do so |
Subsection 37(1) |
Where a public servant is appointed to employment for a term that is not fixed, directing that the public servant be on probation for a period of not more than one year |
Subsection 41(1) |
Receiving at least two weeks’ notice in writing from a public servant of his or her intention to resign from his or her position |
Subsection 41(2) |
Receiving from a public servant notice in writing of his or her withdrawal of the notice of intention to resign at any time before its effective date if no person has been appointed or selected for appointment to the position held by the public servant; and Approving the withdrawal of the resignation |
- Pursuant to subsection 44(4), the PSC delegates to the deputy minister of the ministry whose minister is responsible for a Commission public body the power to dismiss a public servant under sections 34, 38 and 39 appointed to employment under subsection 32(2) to work in that Commission public body.
- Pursuant to subsection 44(10), a deputy minister shall obtain PSC permission to exercise his or her discretion in respect of subsection 38(1) for a regular employee who is employed in the Senior Management Group 2, 3 or 4, Information Technology Executive 2, 3 or 4, Financial Management and Control Group 2 or 3, Crown Counsel 5 or Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner 1 classifications.
- Pursuant to subsection 44(10), the deputy minister may not subdelegate the delegation in paragraph 4a) of this document with respect to subsection 38(1).
Pursuant to subsection 44(4), the PSC delegates to the deputy minister whose minister is responsible for a Commission public body the power under subsection 42(1) to declare in writing that a public servant appointed to employment under subsection 32(2) to work in that Commission public body has abandoned his or her position and that his or her employment by the Crown is terminated.
. . .
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “OHRC”) is committed to and works to provide the highest quality service to the people of Ontario. The OHRC developed its Public Complaints Policy and process (the “Policy”) to ensure that it responds to complaints from members of the public in a transparent, fair and timely manner.
As a non-board governed agency of the Ontario Public Service (OPS), the OHRC is subject to the OPS Service Directive and the OPS Common Service Standards.
The Memorandum of Understanding between the OHRC and the Attorney General requires the OHRC to have a formal process for responding to complaints about the quality of services it provides.
The OHRC’s mandate is to eliminate and prevent discrimination and to promote and advance human rights in Ontario. The OHRC primarily engages with partner and stakeholder organizations to achieve its mandate. The OHRC has limited direct interactions with members of the public. To the extent these interactions happen, they are to respond to requests for:
From time to time, the OHRC receives complaints about its service from members of the public. This Policy applies only to the types of complaints listed below.
This policy applies to complaints from members of the public and other entities about:
Complaints related to dissatisfaction with the OHRC’s decisions whether to conduct an inquiry or CIA, or their outcomes, are not covered under this policy.
The OHRC will not deal with a complaint if the:
This Policy is available in accessible formats upon request.
The OHRC works to promote, protect and advance human rights through research, public education, targeted legal action and policy development.
We cannot provide information, advice or legal opinions on individual cases or circumstances. See the Human Rights Legal Support Centre for more information (below).
Ontario Human Rights Commission
180 Dundas Street West, 9th Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2G5
Tel: (416) 326-9511
Toll Free: 1-800-387-9080
TTY (Local): (416) 326-0603
TTY (Toll Free) 1-800-308-5561
info@ohrc.on.ca
Telephone directory: INFO-GO
Media inquiries: (416) 314-4528
Public education services: Request form
Request an OHRC initiated-application, inquiry or intervention: info@ohrc.on.ca
Follow us: www.facebook.com/the.ohrc | twitter.com/OntHumanRights
The HRLSC provides free legal assistance to people across Ontario who have experienced discrimination contrary to Ontario’s Human Rights Code, and who may want to file an application to the HRTO.
Human Rights Legal Support Centre
180 Dundas Street West, 8th Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 0A1
Tel: (416) 597-4900
Toll Free: 1-866-625-5179
TTY: (416) 597-4903
TTY Toll Free: 1-866 612-8627
www.hrlsc.on.ca
The HRTO deals with all claims of discrimination filed under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Tribunal resolves applications through mediation or adjudication.
Go to the Tribunal's website for:
Call the Tribunal for information about:
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
15 Grosvenor Street, Ground Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2G6
Tel : (416) 326-1312
Toll Free: 1-866-598-0322
TTY (Call the Bell Relay Service): 1-800-855-0511
Fax: (416) 326-2199
Fax (Toll Free): 1-866-355-6099
Email: hrto.registrar@ontario.ca
https://tribunalsontario.ca/hrto/contact/
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) approved a Community Engagement Strategy, Communities for change, in 2018 and also committed to reviewing it on an annual basis. This Update summarizes the results of the 2019 review.
By adopting and adhering to its engagement strategy, the OHRC has deepened its relationships with a broad range of individuals and organizations, including NGOs, community groups, Indigenous peoples, the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) and other statutory human rights institutions.
The OHRC remains committed to the core activities outlined in Communities for change. In this update, we identify the following opportunities and priorities for engagement, considering the limitations arising from new government directives:
For 2019 – 2020, the OHRC will prioritize creating durable and reciprocal relationships with duty holders. The OHRC’s Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022 commits it to:
Building on the OHRC’s ongoing collaboration with the Human Rights Professionals Association (HRPA) and based on the success of the CAG, the OHRC will explore creating a “Duty-holders Advisory Group” (DAG) pursuant to s. 31.5 of the Code. The DAG would provide for more robust communication between duty holders and the OHRC, and help identify and apply best practices, and createproducts that allow employers to meet their human rights obligations.
Consistent with its commitment to put people at the centre of its decisions, in 2019 the OHRC will bring together advisory steering committees comprised of Commissioners, CAG members, Elders/leaders, and people with lived experience in priority areas. These advisory steering committees will guide staff in implementing Commissioner-approved initiatives.