Services are prioritized, especially full representation, to clients who are particularly disadvantaged and who would have difficulty navigating the human rights system without assistance.
The tribunal is aimed at providing quick and direct access for applicants and a fair dispute resolution process for all parties, including respondents.
However, under limited circumstances, a dissatisfied party may make a request for judicial review to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The Ontario Human Rights Code provides that "[e]very person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.
What is new (in the last two decades) is the mounting evidence that this form of racial discrimination is not the result of isolated acts of individual "bad apples" but part of a systemic bias in many police forces.
In addition to the systemic remedies ordered to address issues in police training, Ms. Nassiah was awarded $20,000 for general damages and mental anguish.
Applying Nassiah v Peel and other jurisprudence, the tribunal found that this was a clear case of discrimination, specifically racial profiling.
[21] Sharon Abbott v Toronto Police Services Board (2009)[22] In June 2007, Sharon Abbott, a newspaper carrier, filed an application under the Ontario Human Rights Code alleging that she had been discriminated against in respect of services because of her race and sex contrary to the Code, with respect to an incident with police that resulted in her arrest.
The tribunal noted that "as in many cases alleging racial discrimination, there is no direct evidence that the complainant’s race or colour was a factor in the incident at issue.
As a result, the issue of whether the respondents’ actions amount to racial discrimination in violation of the Code falls to be determined in accordance with the well-established principles applicable to circumstantial evidence cases.
[23] The tribunal found that the applicant's race and/or gender played a role in the officer's failure to take steps to try and de-escalate the situation.
The tribunal cited a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which recognized that racial discrimination most often does not operate on a conscious basis, but rather emanates from unconscious attitudes and belief systems.
Specifically, it was found that the officer was not reasonable in his interaction with Ms. Abbott and that his actions were consistent with a manifestation of racism whereby a "white person in a position of authority has an expectation of docility and compliance from a racialized person, and imposes harsh consequences if that docility and compliance is not provided" and this directly led to the unnecessary arrest and overcharging of Ms.
[26] Toronto police spokesperson Mark Pugash argued that the Tribunal's decision eliminated any possible defence against a racial profiling allegation, stating that "this should scare anyone who could be on the receiving end of such an allegation because it doesn't seem as though you can defend yourself," pointing out the tribunal stated there was "no direct evidence that the complainant's race or colour was a factor in the incident.
"[27] The Ontario Human Rights Code provides that "[e]very person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance."
[28] Discrimination is shown in cases where there is: The Ontario Human Rights Code provides that "[e]very person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
However, any differential treatment based on prohibited grounds may constitute discrimination, including dress codes and appearance requirements.
[35][36] This requires that they be able to prove (after a prima facie case of discrimination has been made out by the employee): This test has been codified in a number of provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
However, the statement released by the commission did raise concerns about the article and the need for discussion and a comprehensive approach to the issue of freedom of expression in the context of human rights.
[44] In a subsequent interview with the National Post, Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall stated that "When the media writes, it should exercise great caution that it's not promoting stereotypes that will adversely impact on identifiable groups.
Maclean's accused every human rights commission in the country for "morphing out of their conciliatory roles to become crusaders working to reshape journalistic discourse in Canada.
"[45] Lisa MacDonald v Downtown Health Club for Women (2009)[47] Lisa MacDonald filed an application under the Ontario Human Rights Code alleging that she had been discriminated against in respect of services on the basis of sex with respect to a request for admission to a women's-only fitness facility in 2006.
Fulton argued that the Code allows service providers to restrict access to facilities "to persons of the same sex on the ground of public decency."
[50] However, according to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, including gender identity, and there is no distinction between transsexuals who are at different stages of transition.
Fulton, the respondent, sought an order of costs against Ms. MacDonald to "compensate [him] for the loss of dignity and stress associated with the accusation of discrimination and the time and money lost in preparing a defence."