Goods, services and facilities
You have the right to be free from discrimination when you receive goods or services, or use facilities. For example, this right applies to:
- stores, restaurants and bars
- hospitals and health services
- schools, universities and colleges
- public places, amenities and utilities such as recreation centres, public washrooms, malls and parks
- services and programs provided by municipal and provincial governments, including social assistance and benefits, and public transit
- services provided by insurance companies
- classified advertisement space in a newspaper.
Relevant policies and guides:
March 2002 - This Report is based on the many and varying viewpoints presented to the OHRC in the course of its public consultation on accessible public transportation in Ontario. Conventional and paratransit systems are examined in depth, in terms of the human rights principles that apply, the issues raised, and the impact on older persons, persons with disabilities, and families with young children. Three key issues raised throughout the consultation were funding, standards, and roles and responsibilities. These issues are examined in depth.
2003 - The Report provides an in-depth picture of human rights issues relating to disability and education in the province of Ontario. It outlines “Actions Required” of key players in the education system to address the practices and attitudes that limit the ability of students with disabilities to access education equally. It also includes specific Commission commitments which are steps that the Commission will take to help combat discrimination against students with disabilities. The Commission’s analysis and recommendations are informed by the comprehensive input received from stakeholders throughout the course of the consultation.
July 2003 - The main purpose of this report is to examine whether the Ontario Safe Schools Act and Regulations and the school board policies on discipline, known by some as “zero tolerance” policies, are having a disproportionate impact on racial minority students and students with disabilities. Advocates of zero tolerance argue that the policies are colour blind and fair because all the students who commit the same offence will be treated the same. Opponents point to other jurisdictions where there is data showing that suspensions and expulsions have a disproportionate impact on Black and other racial minority students and students with disabilities.
October 2003 - The Report begins with a brief explanation and definition of racial profiling. In addition, the Report explains the human cost of racial profiling on the individuals, families and communities that experience it. It details the detrimental impact that profiling is having on societal institutions such as the education system, law enforcement agencies, service providers and so forth. It also outlines the business case against profiling – in essence the economic loss sustained as a result of racial profiling.
April 2004 - In the spring of 2001, the Commission began its efforts to engage the restaurant industry to promote the accessibility of its services and facilities for persons with disabilities in Ontario. The audit focused on the physical premises and services of seven select restaurant chains totaling 28 locations across the province.
April 2008 - In October 2007, in response to recent developments and ongoing concerns in the area of transit accessibility, the Commission began an inquiry into whether transit providers across the province announce transit stops. Through this initiative, the Commission hoped to improve awareness in the transit sector of the importance of announcing all stops for the purposes of inclusion and accessibility, and to secure commitments toward quickly developing and implementing stop announcement plans.
December 2003 - The Report wraps up the Commission’s inquiry initiative by relating what the Commission heard and providing an analysis of the effects of profiling on more than just the individuals and communities most likely to experience it. The Report also analyzes the detrimental impact that profiling is having on societal institutions such as the education system, law enforcement agencies, service providers, etc., and providers, etc., and provides recommendations for bringing an end to this practice.
March 10, 2011 - Thank you for your two recent presentations held January 28 and February 25, 2011 to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), members of the Mental Health Police Record Checks Coalition (PRCC) and other organizations where you gave an overview of the OACP’s Draft Guideline for Police Record Checks.
December 17, 2010 - Racial slurs and other name-calling because of one’s personal characteristics such as disability, sex or sexual orientation is wrong. The Ontario Human Rights Code makes that clear. It’s also clear that sports organizations and their governing bodies in Ontario must follow provincial human rights legislation. They should be prohibiting and not sanctioning such conduct.
May 14, 2010 - The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) supports the regulation of retirement homes across the province. However, we ask the Committee to consider specific recommendations to amend the Bill to enhance the ability of retirement homes providers to meet their obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code)