Summary
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) prepares this submission to provide information to the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism on the OHRC’s work over two decades navigating intersectionality from a racial justice perspective. This submission aims to assist the Special Rapporteur in the preparation of her report to the 59th session of the Human Rights Council as well as support human rights advocacy in Ontario.
About the OHRC
The OHRC was established in 1961. It is an agent of the Crown in right of Ontario, and is an arm’s-length agency of the provincial government. The OHRC administers Ontario’s Human Rights Code (Code). The OHRC’s mandate is to promote and enforce the Code through research, policy development, public education, public inquiries, and legal interventions before tribunals and courts. The OHRC is one of three pillars of Ontario’s human rights system. The other two are the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC).
The purpose of the Code is to create a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person, so that everyone feels part of and able to contribute to the community. It gives everyone the right to equal treatment without discrimination in employment, housing, goods, services and facilities, contracts, and membership in unions, trade or occupational associations based on 17 protected characteristics, known as Code grounds.[1]
This submission
The OHRC provides periodic input to governments and to UN human rights mechanisms on issues relevant to its mandate. The OHRC last made a submission in 2023 for Canada’s review under the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
The OHRC regularly acknowledges the impact of intersectional discrimination in its publications. Recent examples include its Human Rights AI Impact Assessment and Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) frameworks. In this submission, the OHRC highlights key activities it has undertaken to protect and promote the rights of racialized people and combat systemic racism, with a particular focus on the disproportionate harm of intersectional racial discrimination. Work in this area has been a strategic priority of the OHRC for many years and continues to inform goals and intended outcomes in the OHRC’s 2022–25 Strategic Plan across all five priority areas (namely, Indigenous reconciliation, Health and well-being, Education, Criminal justice, and Human rights culture).
Through this submission, the OHRC acknowledges the ongoing efforts of the UN to promote human rights globally, including the rights of racialized people. International human rights treaties and frameworks (such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discriminationand the Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples) have established valuable standards to address intersecting forms of discrimination and to protect against racism.
The OHRC also acknowledges the limited impact of these efforts on racialized communities. This reality is evidently connected to the limited enforcement powers conferred to UN treaty bodies and special procedures. However, the OHRC is concerned that this limitation also stems from inconsistencies in the narratives presented by independent experts (including in-country visit reports) and a one-dimensional view of socio-economic contexts throughout distinct regions.
The OHRC cautions against performative advocacy and urges the Special Rapporteur to pursue concrete and substantive measures within the scope of her mandate to ensure that racism and intersectional discrimination are effectively addressed. This may include, but is not limited to:
- Increasing the frequency of country visits
- Undertaking annual follow-up activities
- Preparing targeted communications combined with thematic and country visit reports
The OHRC would also encourage a more uniform use of indicators in UN activities to measure progress (or the lack thereof) in addressing racial discrimination, as well as the promotion of successful practices implemented by member states that have demonstrated results and positive outcomes for racialized communities.
Intersectionality and racial discrimination in Ontario
The OHRC has explored the concept of intersectionality in detail in its discussion paper, An Intersectional Approach to Discrimination: Addressing Multiple Grounds in Human Rights Claims, and analyzed its implications for racial discrimination in its Policy and guidelines on racism and racial discrimination. The OHRC also recognizes that intersectionality can play a key role in hate.
In short, when a person experiences discrimination on multiple grounds, such as sexual orientation and race, they experience unique and compounding barriers or discrimination.
Applying an intersectional approach to multiple grounds of discrimination acknowledges the complexity of how people experience discrimination, whether it is connected to the unique characteristics of each individual or to the social and historical contexts affecting various groups. Furthermore, intersectionality is a useful approach for addressing social, economic, political, and legal issues that contribute to discrimination but are not directly covered by anti-discrimination legislation, such as the Code. This includes poverty, homelessness, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the use of artificial intelligence technology.
It is important to note that, despite their universal use, the terms “race” and “racial discrimination” are often misunderstood. In the context of the Code, and as defined in the Policy and guidelines on racism and racial discrimination, these concepts refer to “social processes that seek to construct differences among groups with the effect of marginalizing some in society.” Under the Code, it is prohibited to discriminate based on race and other race-related grounds.
Patterns of intersectional discrimination
An intersectional analysis is relevant to discrimination based on any combination of Code grounds, but particularly when race-related grounds are involved.
In Ontario, HRTO data[2] shows that between 2008 and 2024, a majority (53%) of claims alleging discrimination under the Code cited more than one ground as factors of discrimination. When analyzing this same data for claims involving race-related grounds (namely, race, ancestry, colour, citizenship, place of origin, and ethnic origin),[3] the significance of intersectionality is even clearer: only 1,017 claims alleged discrimination based on a single race-related ground, while 15,317 claims alleged discrimination based on one of the six race-related grounds in combination with one or more additional ground(s). Over 48% (48.6%) of all claims involving intersectional discrimination were linked to racial discrimination.
The most common intersections occurred between race-related grounds, as well as between race-related grounds and creed or disability. The intersection between race-related grounds and sex or gender identity/expression is also significant. The OHRC encourages the Special Rapporteur to closely examine these interactions in her report.
Intersection between multiple race-related grounds
Race-related grounds can intersect, as they represent distinct factors within the social construct of race and are perceived in unique ways across individual identities. For instance, despite both being racialized persons, a Black person may experience discrimination differently from an Asian person due to the intersection of race and colour. Similarly, despite both being Indigenous, an Anishinaabe person may face different patterns of discrimination than an Inuk person due to the intersection of ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin.
The OHRC warns that this nuanced expression of intersectionality may go unnoticed compared to potentially more overt ways in which Code grounds interact (discussed below). The OHRC has explored these intersections in various areas but will focus here on racial profiling in criminal justice and education.
Racial profiling and the criminal justice system
Racial profiling is an insidious and particularly damaging type of racial discrimination that relates to notions of safety and security. The OHRC’s report Under suspicion: Concerns about racial profiling by police explored this issue in detail and informed its Policy on eliminating racial profiling in law enforcement.
Building on this policy, the OHRC launched a public inquiry into anti-Black racism in the Toronto Police Service (TPS) and found evidence of systemic racial discrimination, racial profiling, and anti-Black racism across interactions with the TPS. Findings from this inquiry informed the OHRC’s Framework for change to address systemic racism in policing and From Impact to Action: Final report into anti-Black racism by the Toronto Police Service, leading to a continued dialogue between the OHRC and TPS to foster progress.
Racial profiling and the education system
In education, the impact of racial discrimination can affect both learners and educators. The OHRC’s Right to Read inquiry, What We Heard Report: Anti-Black Racism in Education Roundtables, and Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities found that racialized learners are more likely to be streamed into lower academic courses based on stereotypical assumptions, face disproportionately severe disciplinary actions, and have their needs improperly assessed. Racialized educators, meanwhile, are more likely to see their work over-scrutinized, be disregarded for professional development opportunities, and experience burnout or tokenism.
Lastly, because public service sectors are interconnected, racial profiling and intersectional discrimination can compound vulnerabilities through the multiplicity of interactions with systemically racist institutions. This reality was highlighted in the OHRC’s public inquiry Interrupted Childhoods, which examined the over-representation of Indigenous and Black children in Ontario’s child welfare system. The inquiry found that systemic disadvantages across social areas contribute to poor socio-economic outcomes, which, in turn, increase the involvement of racialized children and families with the child welfare system. Racialized children are more likely to experience the adverse effects associated with being placed in the welfare system, thus perpetuating the cycle of systemic discrimination.
Intersection between race-related grounds and creed
The intersection between an individual’s actual or perceived racial characteristics and their creed (i.e., one’s deeply held belief system) is explored in the OHRC’s Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed. This policy provides guidance on ways to address and prevent creed-based discrimination and acknowledges the inextricable link between belief systems, race, and ethnicity in today’s contemporary society. Examples of racialized creed-based discrimination include Islamophobia, antisemitism, caste-based discrimination, and the belittling of Indigenous spiritual traditions as an expression of anti-Indigenous discrimination.
Intersection between race-related grounds and disability
Racialized persons with a disability are highly vulnerable to the compounded effects of intersectional discrimination as they not only face the social oppression of systemic racism but also contend with the stereotypes and accessibility barriers resulting from ableism.
The OHRC’s Policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability underscores that service providers (such as government officials, health care professionals, police, and educators), employers and housing providers must consider the unique needs of individuals who experience discrimination based on both disability and race, as part of their legal duty to maintain environments that are free from discrimination and harassment.
The OHRC has noted the need for further attention on the forms of discrimination and harassment experienced by racialized students with disabilities, particularly Indigenous and Black students. The OHRC explored this issue in both its Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities and its Right to Read inquiry report (a public inquiry into human rights issues affecting students with reading disabilities, with a special focus on early learning). The OHRC has made clear that education providers must ensure that unconscious biases and negative stereotypes do not influence the way they provide services and support to racialized students with disabilities.
Additionally, through findings from the Report of the Ontario Human Rights Commission on Police Use of Force and Mental Health and the Minds that Matter: Report on the consultation on human rights, mental health and addictions, the OHRC acknowledged that people with mental health disabilities are often among the most vulnerable people in Ontario. For example, young Black men with a psychiatric disability find it harder to get housing due to stereotypes related to race, age, gender, and disability.
People with mental health disabilities are also disproportionately vulnerable when interacting with law enforcement. They may be more likely to be subject to officer use of force because of responses to police instructions or behaviours that may seem unusual, unpredictable, or inappropriate, or due to police reliance on stereotypical assumptions about their dangerousness or propensity to violence. Catalyzed by racial profiling, this reality leaves racialized people with mental health disabilities at significant risk.
Intersection between race-related grounds and sex or gender identity/expression
The cumulative effects of intersectional discrimination can be further observed in the sex- or gender-specific ways in which racialized individuals experience discrimination. For instance, in its work on racial profiling, the OHRC has found that Black men are particularly at risk of being suspected of violence and criminality by law enforcement,[4] while Indigenous women and transgender people may be stereotypically profiled as suspected shoplifters, drug users, drug couriers, or sex workers.
As outlined in the OHRC’s Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed, racialized women who observe a religion experience distinct forms or discrimination and harassment in society because of creed-based prejudice. This is often due to their greater visibility or perceived vulnerability. For example, Muslim women who wear the hijab (headscarf) or niqab (face-veil) have been particularly susceptible to creed-based discrimination and harassment.
Addressing intersectional discrimination
The private and public organizations can take concrete steps to address intersectional discrimination and can look to human rights institutions for guidance. Significant progress is possible when human rights standards are prioritized, promoted, protected, and enforced by all members of society.
In Ontario, all duty-holders have the ability under Section 14 of the Code to create special programs[5] which address historical disadvantages experienced by certain groups (for instance, racialized people). The OHRC provided guidance on special programs for both rights- and duty-holders in Your guide to special programs and the Human Rights Code.
The OHRC is clear that advancing human rights requires amplifying the voices of those who experience discrimination. Public dialogues (such as the OHRC-hosted dialogue on Indigenous peoples and human rights), ad hoc expert advisory groups, calls for written submissions, and consultations with individuals or groups affected by intersectional discrimination are all essential tools for ensuring that affected communities shape human rights policies and interventions.
Lastly, the OHRC would like to highlight the essential role of data collection. Cyclical, disaggregated data collection is key to combatting racial discrimination and addressing intersectionality. There is a common misperception that anti-discrimination legislation, such as the Code, prohibit the collection and analysis of data identifying people based on race and other grounds. However, not only does the Code permit the collection and analysis of identity data based on Code grounds for legitimate purposes, but the OHRC also considers it necessary for achieving the goals of the Code. The OHRC has consistently recommended that duty-holders collect and analyze disaggregated data, as outlined in Count me in! Collecting human rights-based data.
[1] The 17 Code-protected grounds are:
- Age
- Ancestry, colour, race
- Citizenship
- Ethnic origin
- Place of origin
- Creed
- Disability
- Family status
- Marital status (including single status and same-sex partnerships)
- Gender identity, gender expression
- Receipt of public assistance (in housing only)
- Record of offences (in employment only)
- Sex (including pregnancy and breastfeeding)
- Sexual orientation.
[2] Under section 38 of the Code, the HRTO discloses data pertaining to applications on a quarterly basis.
[3] It is worth noting that creed is also a Code ground closely related to race, though for the purposes of this submission it is discussed singularly.
[4] R v. Smith, 2015 ONSC 3548 (CanLII) at para 183, 338 CRR (2d) 1 [Smith].
[5] In an international context, special programs are often synonymous with special measures or affirmative action.