In the case of the Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Ontario (Roberts), the Ontario Court of Appeal said that section 14 of the Code has two purposes:
2006 - Public transit in cities across Ontario is fundamental to the ability of many people to participate meaningfully in the life of their communities. Public transportation is used to access employment, education, public and social services and community activities. Equal access by persons with disabilities to public transportation is a right protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code (“Code”). Equal access to transit services in not a reality for many citizens of the Province and despite its importance in our daily lives, barriers to public transit services remain.
A driver's licence contains personal information about an individual which could lead to the classification of a job applicant according to a prohibited ground of discrimination, contrary to subsection 23(2) of the Code. Therefore, unless a driver's licence is required to enable a person to perform the essential duties of a job, it should not be requested in an application form or during an employment interview.
For positions where driving is an essential duty of the job, a question relating to whether or not an applicant is licensed to drive, and/or the type of vehicle the applicant is licensed to drive, would be appropriate. The legitimate needs of the employer and the concerns of the applicant might be served by including the following statement on an application form or in a job advertisement:
This position requires the successful candidate to have a valid driver's licence. The successful candidate would have to provide proof that s/he has a valid driver's licence upon being hired.
Several insurance practices routinely distinguish between people based on, among other things, age, sex, marital status and disability. The exceptions or defences under the Code (see Appendix) justify many such practices if they can be shown to be for valid business reasons based on sound and accepted practices, such as actuarial evidence.
In April 2008, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario released its decision in the case of Connie Heintz v. Christian Horizons. The decision has a significant impact for faith-based and other organizations that provide services to the general public. Such organizations must make sure their hiring policies and practices do not unreasonably restrict or exclude the employment of persons based on grounds under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Consultees in this process broadly agreed that there is a need to review and strengthen Ontario’s human rights system. Almost all consultees indicated that the current human rights system is not working as well as it should be and is in need of some form and degree of change. In fact, a few consultees indicated frustration with not seeing change coming out of previously held consultations.
Black leadership and community engagement have been at the forefront of action to address systemic discrimination and advance racial equity in Ontario. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) recognizes that Black individuals, organizations, and grassroots movements have been working on issues of anti-Black racism in education for decades. The OHRC acknowledges and embraces the work of generations of grassroots and community-led organizing and academics and the significant strides toward protecting the safety and well-being of Black children in Ontario’s publicly funded education system. The OHRC has tried to capture and preserve those works in its initiative to address anti-Black racism in Ontario’s education system. We are grateful for those works and honour the people who have contributed to them.
Under the Municipal Act, 2001 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006, municipalities have broad powers to pass bylaws (subject to certain limits) on matters such as health, safety and well-being of the municipality, and to protect persons and property.[2]