Competing Human Rights eLearning – text alternative Transcript

Part 1: Welcome and Introduction

Goals for this section:

1. Determine which modules you will complete to meet your learning needs.
2. Gain a general understanding about what competing rights are.

Introduction—Renu Mandhane, Chief Commissioner (2016-2021)

Hello I'm Renu Mandhane. Welcome to the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Competing Human Rights eLearning training.

More people are learning about their rights and standing up for them, and sometimes those rights may conflict with the rights of others.

Competing rights issues are in the news, and organizations are planning for and dealing with competing rights issues in the workplace, in schools, in housing accommodation and in services. That’s why the Ontario Human Rights Commission (or OHRC) developed the Policy on Competing Human Rights.

By the end of this training, you’ll understand how to apply the key parts of this policy. Using interactive videos, short documents, and scenarios, you’ll learn about what competing rights are, and what types of situations are actually not competing rights. We’ll use a realistic scenario to go through the OHRC’s framework for analyzing and addressing competing human rights situations step-by-step. This is especially useful if you're looking for information on resolving competing rights issues, or want to develop competing rights policies and procedures. You’ll also learn the key legal principles that are essential for analyzing most competing rights situations.

Taking the full training will give you a good understanding of the OHRC’s Policy on Competing Human Rights. But if you’d like to focus on any part of the Policy, you can find the modules that will help and only take those portions of the training. Or, you may just want to see some examples of competing rights situations that are relevant to your work. If you wish to sharing the information that you learn in this training with your colleagues and others, we’ve made all of our materials available for download.

We hope that this provides the training you need about competing human rights. When you’re finished, please take the short survey. Your feedback will help us improve our eLearning resources. Thank you, and enjoy learning about competing human rights!

Back

What are competing rights?

NARRATOR: Welcome to the Ontario Human Rights Commission's short video about competing human rights.

After you watch this video, you'll have a basic understanding about what competing human rights are. We'll also talk briefly about how to resolve competing human rights issues.

Let's look at an example.

National Aboriginal Day is on June 21, and an Aboriginal community centre planned to celebrate. It sent out notices encouraging staff and members of the Aboriginal community to take part in the event. Some community members who planned to attend requested that the day open with a traditional smudging ceremony, where a bundle of herbs would be burned.

Tala, a worker at the community centre, raised concern that she couldn't take part, because the smoke would aggravate her asthma.

On one hand, Tala has a right to attend the event without aggravating her asthma, because the Code requires her employer to accommodate her on the ground of disability. On the other hand, members of the Aboriginal community may argue that they have a right to accommodation under the Code-protected ground of creed. That's why this is may be a competing human rights issue.

How can we resolve this situation?

Both sides recognized the importance of each other's interests. The worker wanted the ceremony to proceed and the community members wanted the worker to take part. So they worked together and solved the problem by moving the opening ceremony outdoors and redirecting smoke away from the worker. This type of informal problem solving is called a “Quick resolution” process. In fact, the vast majority of competing human rights issues can be resolved this way – by working together to find a solution.

Where people understand their rights, recognize each other's claims and show respect for one another, the quick resolution process will usually be appropriate. The OHRC has developed a step-by-step framework for addressing competing rights. There are 3 stages in the full process: Recognizing competing rights claims, reconciling competing human rights claims and making decisions.

For quick resolution cases, the framework can be used for guidance and reference. In more complicated cases, or where the parties are less cooperative, the “full process” may be needed, and the framework should be applied in detail.

Thank you for watching this short video!

Want to know more? Detailed information about the step-by-step process for addressing competing human rights, including lots of examples, can be found in our interactive Competing human rights eLearning course. Click on the link to access it. You can also view the Policy and several other resources by clicking the links on your screen.

Back

Flow chart for competing rights conciliation

This is a simplified version of the “Flow chart for competing rights conciliation” found in the Policy. It will give you a general idea about the overall stages involved in reconciling competing rights situations. You might want to print it off and keep it handy as you go through the course, so that you can see how the information you’re learning fits into the process.

Back

Part 2: The Ontario Human Rights Code and Reducing the Potential for Conflict

Goals for this section:

1. Understand the OHRC’s definition of competing rights.
2. Understand the difference between human rights, other legal entitlements, interests and values, and how these definitions can help us analyze competing rights issues.
3. Learn the Ontario Human Rights Code’s grounds and social areas.
4. Understand how to reduce the potential for competing rights conflict.

NARRATOR:
Welcome to Module 2. You’ll learn how to tell the difference between human rights and other types of rights, interests and values. You’ll use this information when analyzing a competing rights situation.

Competing Human Rights eLearning Module 2 - Reducing the Potential for Conflict: Definitions

Human rights are for everyone. In Canada, they are protected and interpreted through:

• the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• provincial, territorial and federal human rights laws
• decisions of tribunals and courts
• human rights commissions and
• international law.

For example, the Ontario Human Rights Code is a provincial law that gives everybody equal rights and opportunities without discrimination in jobs, housing, services and other areas.

The Code’s goal is to prevent discrimination and harassment because of race, sexual orientation, disability, creed, and other Code grounds.

Human rights are given a special, highly protected status by the law. We’ll talk more about the Code in the next section.

Legal entitlements can be described as rights that are also protected by law, but do not have the same special status as human rights. For example, in Ontario, the Residential Tenancies Act protects a person’s right to “reasonable enjoyment” of their rental housing.

An interest is a matter in which someone has a personal concern, share, portion or stake. Interests are generally not legal rights, but in some cases an interest could be raised to the status of a right, like in “the best interests of the child”.

Values are moral principles, standards or things that a person (or group) believes are vital for being a good person or citizen. Honesty, respect and integrity are examples of values that people may hold. Generally, values are personal or subjective and not open to legal action in and of themselves. But understanding the values held by claimants may help in the search for solutions.

There are many situations where rights, interests and values seem to conflict or compete. When evaluating situations of competing rights, a higher status will be given to human rights and other legally defined rights than to interests and values. This is important to remember when you are deciding if a situation involves valid competing rights, or not.

Back

Competing Human Rights eLearning Module 2 - Reducing the Potential for Conflict: The Code

At the beginning of the code is the preamble. The Preamble to the Code is important. It states that it's public policy in Ontario that we can all live, work and play with dignity, can contribute to society, and have equal access to opportunities, without discrimination.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reflects human rights values in Canada and around the world. For this reason wording from this important document appears in the Preamble of the Code.

After the Preamble comes Part 1. Many people don't know that the Code only protects them in specific situations. Part 1 is the section of the Code that ensures all Ontarians the right to enjoy freedom from discrimination in 5 specific areas, called "social areas," and on specific "grounds of discrimination."

The 5 social areas covered by the Code are: Services goods and facilities, Housing ("Accommodation,") Contracts, Employment, and Vocational Associations.

Services may include stores, restaurants and bars, hospitals and health services, schools, universities and colleges, public places and their facilities, such as community centres, public washrooms, libraries, malls and parks, municipal and provincial government services and programs such as social assistance and benefits, and public transit, services provided by insurance companies, and classified ads in a newspaper.

Accommodation, or housing, may include buying, selling, renting or being evicted from an apartment, house, condominium, commercial office or hotel.

You have the right to equal treatment when buying, selling, renting or being evicted from an apartment, house, condominium, commercial office or a hotel. This includes being able to enter the building, such as the doors, using the swimming pool or the laundry room. A landlord can't refuse to rent to a tenant who is on public assistance, family benefits or a disability pension.

A contract is a legal agreement in writing or verbal. Everyone has a right to enter a contract on equal terms.

'Employment' is interpreted broadly, and covers everything from hiring to firing. It can include licensing, training, promotions and dismisal, overtime, vacations, sick benefits, discipline and performance evaluations. The Code can apply to employees and after-hours work and when employees are not at their workplace.

Everyone has a right to join, and to be treated equally, in a union, professional association, or other vocational association.

Part 1 of the code lists the grounds of discrimination. You cannot discriminate against another person or group of people because of their: citizenship, race, place of origin, ethnic origin, colour, ancestry, disability, age, creed, sex or pregnancy, gender identity, gender expression, family status, marital status, sexual orientation, receipt of public assistance (in housing only), or record of offences (in employment only).

Discrimination also includes: intersecting grounds, which means treating people differently on more than one ground, ...because of association, which means treating people differently because a friend or family member identifies with a ground ... perceived grounds, which means treating people differently because of a belief that they identify with a code ground, when in fact, they don't.

Let’s review the Preamble and Part 1 of the Code. The Preamble is important because it states that it is public policy in Ontario to respect the dignity and worth of every person, to create a climate of mutual understanding, and that we all have equal rights and opportunities so that we can fully participate in society.

Part I of the code covers freedom from discrimination and sets out the social areas and the prohibited grounds of discrimination. Part I also includes other forms of discrimination such as intersecting grounds, discrimination because of association and perceived discrimination.

Back

Competing Human Rights eLearning Part 2 - Reducing the Potential for Conflict

What steps can organizations take to reduce the potential for human rights conflict and competing rights?

• Be familiar with the Ontario Human Rights Code and your obligations under it
• Take steps to educate and train appropriate staff about competing human rights situations and the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on Competing Human Rights.

Having this background knowledge will help organizations act quickly and responsibly when issues arise.

Next, develop a competing rights policy. This policy should:

• Set out the process for resolving competing rights situations
• Inform all parties about their rights, roles and responsibilities
• Commit the organization to deal with competing rights matters promptly and efficiently.

Taking these proactive steps to address competing human rights matters can help protect organizations from legal liability if a human rights complaint occurs.

For the suggested content of an internal competing human rights policy, see the OHRC Policy on competing human rights: Suggested contents of an internal policy.

Back

Competing Human Rights eLearning - Quiz for Part 2

Question 1:
True or false: Organizations and institutions operating in Ontario have a legal duty to take steps to anticipate and respond to situations involving competing rights.

Take a moment to consider your answer. When you are ready, continue reading to get the correct answer.

This statement is true.

Question 2:
Connect each item with its corresponding example:

1. To reasonably enjoy rental housing… is it: a) …a value? b) …a human right? c) …a legal right (non-human rights related)?
2. To be free from discrimination on the ground of disability… is it: a) …a value? b) …a human right? c) …a legal right (non-human rights related)?
3. Honesty… is it: a) …a value? b) …a human right? c) …a legal right (non-human rights related)?

Take a moment to consider your answer. When you are ready, continue reading to get the correct answer.

To reasonably enjoy rental housing is a legal right; to be free from discrimination on any of the Code grounds, including disability, is a human right; honesty is a value.

Question 3:
Which of these grounds of discrimination are covered under the Ontario Human Rights Code? Select all that apply:

1. Creed
2. Disability
3. Sexual orientation
4. Race
5. Family status

Take a moment to consider your answer. When you are ready, continue reading to get the correct answer.

People are protected from discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code based on all of the above grounds.

Back

Part 3: Examples of Competing Rights Situations

Goals for this module:

1. Understand that there are different types of competing rights situations.
2. Through the examples and discussion questions, learn about different types of competing rights situations and how to analyze them.
3. Consider which types of competing rights situations may apply to you, in your employment, services, etc.
4. Differentiate between situations that are competing rights situations and those which are not (for example, duty to accommodate situations).

Welcome

NARRATOR:
Welcome to Module 3 of the Competing Human Rights Course.

Back

Competing rights situations

Competing human rights situations may happen when the rights of a person or group come into conflict with the rights of others in housing, services, work situations, or other areas protected by the Code.

Competing human rights situations may involve the following:

• Code right v. Code right
• Code right v. Code legal defence
• Code right v. other legislated right
• Code right v. Charter right
• Code right v. common law right
• International treaty right v. Code/Charter defence
• Charter right v. Charter right

Back

Duty to accommodate

It’s also important to know the difference between duty to accommodate claims and competing rights claims, because the two often get confused. An example of a duty to accommodate claim would be a person with a disability who is requesting an accommodation, like different work hours to match a para-transpo bus schedule. This might be difficult for an employer who needs employees to be at work during certain hours. It may seem like a competing rights situation because the rights of the person with a disability are competing against the needs of the employer - but in fact they are not. The employer has a legal duty to accommodate her employee. If she believes she cannot do so, she has to prove that the accommodation will cause undue hardship. This isn’t a competing rights issue because only one person is making a claim – the employee. The employer is not claiming that her rights are being violated, she is responding to her employee’s claim.

Back

Examples

In this section, you’ll find examples that will help you clarify what is, and what is not, considered a competing human rights issue. Knowing the type of situation you’re dealing with is important, because then you can decide what steps to take next. We haven’t provided an example for each type of competing right, but if you want more information about a particular type, click on the one that you want to know more about.

You don’t have to look at all of the examples in module 3 right now, and you can always come back later to see any that you missed. You can also refer to the policy for more in-depth information and examples.

In a competing rights case, two people or groups are both making claims. The examples in this section will give you a good sense of what this could look like.

Back

Quiz for Part 3

Welcome to the quiz for Part 3!

You will be given a series of scenarios, just like the ones you just read about in this module and asked questions about each to check your learning. Let’s get started!

Scenario 1:
Marga uses a wheelchair and works on the second floor of her company’s office building. The building has an elevator, but no ramps, so Marga has to go through the commercial garage to get inside. Marga asked her employer to accommodate her disability with a ramp to the main doors, so that she can come and go like everyone else. Her employer says that building a ramp is too expensive and would hurt the business. Is this a competing rights case?

1. Yes: Marga has a Code right not to be discriminated against because of her disability, and the employer has a right to run an efficient business.
2. No: only Marga is making a claim of discrimination. The employer has a legal duty to accommodate Marga’s disability, unless it can show that this would cause undue hardship.

Take a moment to consider your answer. When you are ready, continue reading to get the correct answer.

The correct response is "B. No.": only Marga is making a claim of discrimination. The employer has a legal duty to accommodate Marga’s disability, unless it can show that this would cause undue hardship.

Scenario 2:
Mansur is a taxi driver employed by a taxi company. He is allergic to dogs. One day Max, who is blind, tries to enter Mansur’s taxi with his guide dog. Mansur refuses to let him into the taxi and tells Max that he can’t serve him because he’s allergic to dogs. Is this a competing rights situation?

1. Yes: Mansur has a Code right to be free from discrimination at work because of his disability, and blind customers have a Code right not to experience discrimination in services because of their disabilities.
2. No: Customers who use guide dogs have a Code right not to be discriminated against because of their disability, but Mansur does not have Code rights in this case because he is obliged to follow his employer’s rules.
3. No: Customers with disabiltiies can easily get another cab, so this is not really a violation of their Code rights.

Take a moment to consider your answer. When you are ready, continue reading to get the correct answer.

The correct response is "A. Yes.": Mansur has a Code right to be free from discrimination at work because of his disability, and blind customers have a Code right not to experience discrimination in services because of their disabilities.

Scenario 3:
Sandeep has just started working as a security officer for a private security company. As part of his religion, Sandeep wears a turban. His manager has told Sandeep not to wear his turban at work, because it is not part of the standard uniform. He also said that wearing a turban might pose safety risks, though he did not name any specific dangers. Is this a competing rights case?

1. Yes: Sandeep has a Code right to wear his turban, and his employer has a right to preserve the traditional uniform.
2. No: Sandeep has a Code right to wear his turban, and his employer has a duty to accommodate Sandeep’s religious requirements, up to the point of undue hardship.
3. No: When Sandeep is at work, he must conform to his employer’s standards.

Take a moment to consider your answer. When you are ready, continue reading to get the correct answer.

The correct response is "B. No.": Sandeep has a Code right to wear his turban, and his employer has a duty to accommodate Sandeep’s religious requirements, up to the point of undue hardship.

In this section, you’ve learned that for a competing human rights case to exist, legally protected rights must be present in both claims, and at least one of the claims connects to human rights law. Often duty to accommodate situations get mistaken for competing rights, so it’s important to assess each situation individually.

Now let’s move on to section 4, where we’ll go through the key legal principles for analyzing competing human rights issues, like the ones you’ve seen in this section.

Back

Part 4: Key Legal Principles

Goals for this section:

1. Learn about the key legal principles that are applied in competing rights situations.
2. Apply the key legal principles to analyze a possible competing rights situation.

The learner is introduced to a scenario. Each key legal principle is explained, and then applied to the scenario by the learner. At the end of the module, the real-life outcome of the scenario is revealed, prompting the learner to reflect on their analyses.

Using key legal principles

NARRATOR:
Hello and welcome to part 4.

As you’ve seen, every competing rights issue is different. We have to be able to analyze each situation to know what to do next, and the key legal principles will help us do that.

We’ll use a scenario as we go through the Key Legal Principles, to help with the analysis process.

Here’s the scenario:

Matt is a gay 17-year-old student attending a publicly funded Catholic high school. He wishes to go to the prom with a same-sex date. The prom is being held at a rental hall off school property.

The school principal and the School Board have said no, on the grounds that this would be endorsing conduct contrary to the Catholic Church’s teachings.

Matt believes that this is a violation of his human rights. He is considering seeking a court injunction because the prom is only weeks away.

As you go through this part, think about each key legal principle and how it might affect the outcome for Matt and the School Board in the scenario. When you’ve gone through the key legal principles, select the “Scenario Outcome” button below to see if your analysis matches the real-life outcome of a similar case.

Start by selecting each key legal principle for more information about it.

8 legal principles

Decision

The scenario we used in this part was based on the 2002 Hall v. Powers case.

In Hall v. Powers, the Ontario Superior Court granted an injunction restraining the Durham Catholic District School Board from preventing Marc Hall’s attendance at his high school prom with his boyfriend. The Court was called on to balance Hall’s s.15 Charter right to be free from discrimination based on his sexual orientation with the right to freedom of religion in s. 2(a) of the Charter and the protection of denominational school rights in s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court noted a diversity of opinion within the Catholic community about how to approach homosexuality, and found that bringing a same-sex date to a prom doesn’t affect the essential nature of a Catholic school. The serious restrictions imposed on Mr. Hall’s rights were not defensible under section 1 of the Charter.

Marc Hall attended the prom with his boyfriend.

In the decision, the judge stated:

The evidence in this record clearly demonstrates the impact of stigmatization on gay men in terms of denial of self, personal rejection, discrimination and exposure to violence. In Ontario, this stigma has been ameliorated by the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Ontario Human Rights Code, as a prohibited ground. The cultural and social significance of a high school prom is well established. Being excluded from it constitutes a serious and irreparable injury to Mr. Hall as well as a serious affront to his dignity.

and

It seems to me that the effect of an injunction on the defendants and on other members of the Catholic faith community will be far less severe than the effect on Mr. Hall and on lesbian and gay students generally if an injunction is not granted. An injunction will not compel or restrain teachings within the school and will not restrain or compel any change or alteration to Roman Catholic beliefs. It seeks to restrain conduct and not beliefs. As such, it does not impair the defendants’ freedom of religion. Neither the defendants nor any other Canadian need adjust their beliefs regarding lesbian women and/or gay men as a consequence of the order sought.

Did you come to the same conclusions? To see the full Hall v. Powers decision, select the link on your screen.

I hope that the key legal principles in this part help you in the analysis and decision-making processes for competing rights issues.

Congratulations! You have now completed Part 4.

Back

Part 5: Framework for resolving competing rights issues in organizations

Goals for this section:

1. Understand the quick resolution and full processes for addressing competing rights, and when each should be used.
2. Learn Alternative Dispute Resolution models for resolving competing rights issues.
3. Understand each step of the framework for addressing competing rights issues in organizations.
4. Ability to apply the framework for addressing competing rights issues in an organizational setting.

Welcome

Welcome to Part 5 of the competing rights course! As we go through a competing rights scenario together, you will have a chance to make decisions and see what happens next.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission – or OHRC – has a framework for addressing competing rights issues. Depending on the situation, organizations can use the framework to address competing rights through a quick process or the full process. Many competing rights issues can be resolved using the quick process, which is informal and usually involves no more than one or two meetings. The quick process focuses on finding solutions that benefit all sides and respect human rights. For an example of a scenario that was resolved using the quick resolution process, select the link on your screen.

I’ll show you how to apply the full process, by going through the framework together step by step. Select the link on your screen to follow along with the framework.

We’ll start with a scenario.

Back

Scenario

Meet Professor Ito. She has been teaching in the Business Administration program at a community college for over 15 years. She’s a popular professor. Professor Ito is blind and has a guide dog, Patten. Professor Ito teaches several courses, including “Introduction to Human Resources Management" which is taught twice per semester. Because of her seniority, Professor Ito has the daytime session. Another professor teaches the evening session.

This is Mya. She is a student in the Business Administration program focussing on Human Resources. She has to take the course “Introduction to Human Resources Management,” which is a pre-requisite for the human resources speciality. She’s in Professor Ito’s daytime session.

Mya has a severe allergy to dogs and is thinking about withdrawing from the course. She has been sitting in the back of the class as far away from Patten as possible. Patten stays under Professor Ito’s desk during her lectures. However, Mya’s eyes itch and she has difficulty sitting in the same room with Patten for two hours at a time.

Mya thought about switching to the evening course but she doesn’t have the money to hire a baby-sitter for her 3-year-old son. During the day, he’s at the subsidized college daycare.

Mya claims that because of her allergies she is being denied equal access to the college’s educational services. She doesn’t understand why Professor Ito needs to have Patten in the class while she is teaching.

Is this a competing rights situation? What should the college do to make sure both Professor Ito and Mya can enjoy their rights?

To answer these questions, we’ll go through the full framework.

Framework

There are three stages in the framework:

• Stage 1: Recognizing competing rights claims
• Stage 2: Reconciling competing rights; and
• Stage 3: Making decisions.

Each stage has steps to help you analyze the situation.

Let’s start with the first question: is this a competing rights situation?

Stage 1

Stage 1 has three steps that will help us figure out if this is really a competing rights situation:

• Step 1: What are the claims about?
• Step 2: Do claims connect to legitimate rights?
• Step 3: Do claims amount to more than minimal interference with rights?

Answers to these questions will help you know what to do next.

Step 1

Step 1 is about having a good understanding of the claims. We do this by having a detailed discussion with each person about their claim.

Based on what you know from the scenario, what are Professor Ito’s claims?

• I should be able to teach in the daytime because I’ve worked here for 15 years and have earned seniority.
• I need my service dog, Patten, wherever I go.
• I should be able to bring Patten to class with me. If I couldn’t, that would be discrimination.

Now, think about Mya’s claims, and click on the boxes that apply to her.

• I have a severe allergy to dogs.
• I can’t take the evening classes, because I can’t afford a babysitter for my son.
• I have to take this course - it’s a requirement for my program.
• I’m having a lot of difficulty being in the same room as Patten, even though I sit at the back .
• I shouldn’t have to drop out of the class because of my allergy - that would be discrimination.

Step 2

In Step 2, we need to make sure that both Professor Ito’s claims and Mya’s claims connect to legitimate rights. We do this by answering these questions:

1. Do claims involve individuals or groups rather than operational interests?
2. Does at least one claim fall under a human right?
3. Do claims fall within the scope of the right?

Let’s start with (a) - Do claims involve individuals or groups rather than operational interests?

This question helps us tell the difference between a competing rights claim, where both sides have claims, and a duty to accommodate situation, where only one side has a claim. To review the difference between a duty to accommodate situation and a competing rights situation, review the introduction for Part 3.

In this scenario, do the claims involve individuals or operational interests? [pause] Right – there are two individuals making claims, Prof. Ito and Mya. Let’s look at question (b): Does at least one claim fall under a human right?

Sometimes it helps to ask “which rights could be violated?” Here is a list of the grounds of discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Are Professor Ito or Mya’s claims based on any of these grounds? [pause] Yes, they are both making claims on the ground of disability. The college has a duty to accommodate both Mya and Professor Ito’s disabilities. Professor Ito says that it would be discrimination if she is not allowed to take her service dog to class. Mya says that it would be discrimination if she can’t attend class because of her allergy. Both are claiming discrimination on the ground of disability.

Now let’s look at question c - Do the claims fall within the scope of the right?

This question is asking you to make sure that both Professor Ito and Mya are making claims that are within the scope of their right under the Code to not be discriminated against.

We all have the right to be free from discrimination because of disability, and the right to be accommodated. Do Professor Ito and Mya’s claims fall within the scope of this right? [pause]

Yes – Professor Ito has the right to bring her dog to class as an accommodation for her disability, blindness. Mya has the right to attend class, and to have her disability – a severe allergy to dogs – accommodated, as well. So both Professor Ito and Mya’s claims fall within the scope of their right to be free from discrimination on the ground of disability.

Now that we’ve completed the process for step 2, let’s move on to step 3.

Step 3: Do claims amount to more than minimal interference with rights?

Now we are looking at how much the issue actually interferes with Professor Ito and Mya’s rights. Will Professor Ito be disadvantaged if she can’t take her dog to class, or if she has to teach the evening class? Will this limit her opportunities? [pause]
Yes. If Professor Ito can’t take her dog to class, it will significantly interfere with her right to accommodation. If she has to teach the evening class, it will affect her right to equal opportunities in the workforce. This is more than a minor interference with her rights.

In Mya’s case, will she be disadvantaged if nothing is done to address her allergy to Professor Ito’s dog, or if she is forced to quit the class? [pause]
Yes. If Mya has to attend class with Professor Ito’s dog with no accommodation, or quit the class, it will significantly interfere with her rights to accommodation and equal participation in the classroom.

Both Professor Ito and Mya’s claims, if realized, would amount to more than minimal interference with the other person’s rights, because there would be significant disadvantages to the other person.

Now we’ve completed the stage 1 analysis. By going through the three steps in stage 1, we’ve confirmed that Professor Ito and Mya each have legitimate rights, and that these rights compete. Is there a way to settle this, so that both Professor Ito and Mya are happy?

Before we begin the process of reconciling competing rights in Stage 2, we need to find the approach that works best for the particular situation. Should we go through the process independently? Or should we hire a mediator? Let’s look at some Alternative Dispute Resolution models, or ADR models, to help answer these questions.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) models

The first ADR model is called negotiation. This is a voluntary process that does not involve an independent mediator. Negotiation is used when parties want to control the process of reconciling claims, rather than have a third party control the process and impose decisions on them. It is also less costly.

The second ADR model is called conciliation, also known as mediation. In mediation, an impartial third party is hired to facilitate the process of reconciling the competing rights. This model can be used when attempts at negotiation reach a deadlock, or when the situation is too complex to address without outside expertise. Settlements are legally enforced. It is still much less costly than litigation.

Which ADR model do you think would work for the college, Professor Ito and Mya?

There is no right or wrong answer – the answer will depend on individual circumstances and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, the college, Professor Ito and Mya have agreed to try the negotiation model. Everyone hopes that they can come to a solution by working together. At this point, they don’t think a mediator is needed.

We have completed the Stage 1 analysis, and we know that Professor Ito and Mya have a competing rights situation that needs to be resolved.

Professor Ito, Mya and the college have all decided that they would like to use the negotiation model for dispute resolution. Now we’re ready to begin Stage two: reconciling competing rights.

Stage 2

Step 4

In stage 2, step 4 we ask: is there a solution that allows enjoyment of each right?

There could be solutions that solve the issues in Professor Ito and Mya’s competing rights situation. Some solutions may require changes to the way that Mya or Professor Ito, or both, enjoy their rights.

Let’s see if we can reconcile Professor Ito and Mya’s situation during Step 4. Think about some solutions that might work for Professor Ito and Mya.

Here are some of the solutions that the college suggested:

• Could a dedicated human assistant support Professor Ito during class, instead of her dog?
• Could the college provide a staff person at the daycare in the evening so that Mya’s son could be dropped off while Mya attends the evening course?

In some cases, going through Step 4 will resolve the competing rights situation. But what if Professor Ito does not feel comfortable with a human assistant, or the college can’t find a staff member for evening daycare? What if none of the other possible solutions are viable? If the case can’t be resolved at this step, we would move to step 5.

Step 5

In Step 5, we ask: If there is no solution that allows enjoyment of each right, is there a “next best” solution?

If the reconciliation process in Step 4 does not lead to an ideal solution, there is still a duty to explore other, next best options. There may have to be a compromise, where parties are asked to be flexible, and possibly give something up.

Can you think of some “next best” solutions that could resolve the case for Professor Ito and Mya? Write them in the text box, and press “submit” when you’re finished.

[move to next slide when the submit button is pressed]

Thank you!
Professor Ito, Mya and the college discussed some next best solutions. They might decide, for example, that Mya will take the course during the day, at home, by video-conferencing. This wouldn’t be ideal for Mya, who might prefer to attend the class in person, but it might be a feasible solution that allows both Mya and Professor Ito to basically enjoy their rights, with some flexibility on Mya’s part.

Alternatively, they might decide that Professor Ito will work in the evenings, just for this semester, and the other professor would take the day class. This solution wouldn’t be ideal for Professor Ito, who has worked hard to achieve seniority and teach at her preferred time. But it might be a workable compromise to allow both Professor Ito and Mya to basically enjoy their rights, with a temporary concession from Professor Ito. By working together, Professor Ito, Mya and the college can successfully reconcile this competing rights situation.

What if the parties are not agreeable to possible solutions? In some cases, competing rights situations might not be resolved by going through Stages 1 and 2 of the full process. But organizations still have an obligation to deal with claims, using a process that is consistent with the law and OHRC policy. In these cases, organizations must move on to Stage 3: Making decisions.

Stage 3 Making decisions

Some organizations have processes or policies to help deal with these situations. You might also find that the situation is too complex or contentious to deal with on your own, and you may wish to seek legal advice.

In any case, it is helpful to engage all parties in the reconciliation process.

You’ve now gone through the full process for reconciling a competing rights scenario! I hope this has helped you understand when to use the full process, and how it can be helpful.

Back