Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Should Ontario Introduce New Prohibited Grounds Into Human Rights Code?

by David Doorey October 9, 2017
written by David Doorey October 9, 2017

Former Law Dean, now MPP Natalie Des Rosiers has proposed reforms to the Ontario Human Rights Code that would add four new prohibited grounds, including:  genetics, immigration status, social condition and police records.
Des Rosiers is quoted in a CBC story explaining her position:

“In my view, Ontario must have a Human Rights Code that addresses fully the new types of discrimination that Ontarians may feel and may face,” she said. “The purpose of this bill is to recognize there is a role for government in ensuring we respond proactively to discrimination,” she added.

“Social condition”, “social disadvantage”, and receipt of public assistance are OHT-300x139recognized as prohibited grounds in some provinces already.   Five provinces prohibit discrimination based on “citizenship/nationality”, including Ontario, but Des Rosiers’ “immigration status” I presume refers to status under the Immigration and Refugeee Protection Act and Citizenship Act [citizens, permanent residents, and foreign nationals].   The various immigration status categories in Canada are reviewed in Chapter 31 [The Right to Work: Immigration and Mobility Law] in The Law of Work.
“Police records” and “genetics” would be new for Canada.  Some Canadian jurisdictions prohibit discrimination on the basis of “record of offence”, but that is different than “police records”.   All Canadian jurisdictions prohibits discrimination on the basis of “ethnicity”, which could get at some of the same things as would “genetics”, but not all.  For example, “ethnicity” would not capture a worker denied employment because her father had a disability that is genetically transmitted (although “perceived disability” could perhaps catch that scenario).
Here is Chart 27.1 from The Law of Work that lists the prohibited grounds in Canada as of 2016.  There have already been some changes that will have to wait until the next edition of the book to be incorporated (i.e.  B.C. recently added “gender identity or expression”).

From D. Doorey, The Law of Work (Emond, 2017)

From D. Doorey, The Law of Work (Emond, 2017)


 What about “Public Opinion”?
Missing from MPP Des Rosiers’ proposal is, in my opinion, the most obvious omission from the Ontario Human Rights Code’s list of prohibited grounds:  political opinion.
Already 9 of 14 Canadian jurisdictions protect against political opinion/belief discrimination.  Every jurisdiction in Canada prohibits discrimination based on “religious” belief, but political belief is only protected in some jurisdictions.   Ontario is one of the 5 jurisdictions that permits discrimination based on political belief/opinion.  This is an odd omission that should be remedied if we are adding new prohibited grounds.
The omission of political opinion means that an employer can ask job applicants about their political affiliations or beliefs and base their hiring decision on the workers’ answer.   It means an employer could order employees into a meeting and demand that they vote for a particular political party under fear of dismissal.  It means that a person can be fired for wearing a political party’s t-shirt to work or putting a politician’s sign on their front lawn.
Given growing political polarization in the world, with many politicians (especially on the political right) deliberately fanning division and political hostility as an election strategy, it is easy to imagine that protection of  “political opinion” at work will become increasingly important.  Ontario should get ahead of the curve and following the lead of the 9 other Canadian jurisdictions that have already prohibited discrimination at work on the basis of political opinion.
Issues for Discussion
1.  What do you think of MPP Natalie Des Rosiers’ proposals to add genetics, immigration status, social condition and police records to the Ontario Human Rights Code?   Can you anticipate what the arguments against this proposal will be?
2.  Why do you think that Ontario governments have resisted including “political opinion” in the list of prohibited grounds?  Should an employer be able to weed out employees based on political opinion?
3.   Are there any other grounds you would propose to be added?  How about “physical appearance”, “weight”, or “height”?  What are arguments for and against adding any of these grounds?
 

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Precarious Work Conference at Western (Nov. 3-4)
next post
Major Graduate Student Symposium on Labour Issues at York

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.