The Code includes two grounds that provide protections for persons in relationships: marital status and family status. “Marital status” is defined in section 10 of the Code as “the status of being married, single, widowed, divorced or separated and includes the status of living with a person in a conjugal relationship outside marriage”, including both same-sex and opposite sex relationships.
“Family status” is defined as “the status of being in a parent and child relationship.” This can also mean a parent and child “type” of relationship, embracing a range of circumstances without blood or adoptive ties but with similar relationships of care, responsibility and commitment.
The grounds of marital and family status intersect to cover a range of family forms, including lone parent and blended families, as well as families where the parents are in a ‘common law’ relationship.
Relevant policy:
2007 - The Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits housing providers from discriminating against families with children. This applies to renting, being evicted, building rules and regulations, repairs, and use of services and facilities.
2007 - Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, persons in a parent-child relationship have a right to equal treatment in the workplace. This means that employers cannot discriminate in hiring, promotion, training, benefits, workplace conditions, or termination of employment because a person is caring for a child or parent.
2012 - The Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) provides for equal rights and opportunities, and freedom from discrimination based on various grounds. The Code recognizes the dignity and worth of every person in Ontario, in employment, housing, facilities and services, contracts, and membership in unions, trade or vocational associations. The Code protects you from discrimination in these areas based on your family status.
Kingston - Attorney General John Gerretsen today joined Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, to launch In the zone: Housing, human rights and municipal planning. The guide offers municipalities information about their legal obligations, and about the tools and best practices they can apply to connect human rights and housing when making zoning and planning decisions.
Toronto - Today the Ontario Human Rights Commission released the results of its groundbreaking initiative on discrimination based on family status. “Ontario is proud to be the first jurisdiction to examine the human rights implications of barriers faced by families who are caring for children, aging parents or relatives, and family members with disabilities”, said Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner.
On Wednesday, May 2nd, Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall begins a four-city launch of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's Consultation Report and Policy on Discrimination on the basis of Family Status. The documents set out how family relationships affect access to employment, housing and services and human rights protections related to family status under Ontario’s Human Rights Code.
I am excited to have the opportunity to share with you the results of the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s (the “Commission”) groundbreaking project on discrimination on family status. The project is the first in Canada to examine the human rights implications of the barriers faced by families who are caring for children, aging parents or relatives, and family members with disabilities.
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.
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.
