The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

The New Ontario Human Rights Model

by David Doorey August 6, 2008
written by David Doorey August 6, 2008

On June 30th, the new human rights model came into effect in Ontario, pursuant to the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006. I intended to write a summary of the new system, but I couldn’t see anyway to improve on the description of the new law prepared by the lawyers at Cavalluzzo Hayes. So, with the firm’s blessing, I am attaching their summary.
This new model introduces significant changes. The main one involves the revised role of the Human Rights Commission. In the old model, the Commission acted as a gate-keeper of all complaints filed under the Human Rights Code–it reviewed and investigated complaints and then decided which cases would proceed to the Human Rights Tribunal. Thus, only a small percentage of complaints were ever litigated, and the Commission had carriage of the cases during the litigation. The Commission’s role was to represent the public interest generally, and not the individual complainant. Often the public interest and the interest of the complainant were the same, but not always.  Since the Commission carried the case forward, complainants did not need their own lawyers, which made the process cheaper.  But there were huge delays in getting a resolution, and the odds of a complaint making it to the Tribunal were very low.
Under the new model, complaints must be filed directly with the Tribunal.   This means the complainant can no longer depend on the Commission to advocate on their behalf,  and therefore there may be a greater need to retain a lawyer or someone with expertise in litigating complaints.  The Commission is no longer a gate-keeper to the Tribunal, but it still has a significant role to play.   And the Tribunal has been given new powers  that have raised red flags among some advocates. For example, see the argument in this editorial by noted human rights lawyer David Lepofsky.
Although most everyone agreed that the old model had serious problems as system for addressing discrimination, the debate about how to ‘fix’ the system proved to be very divisive, even within the community of human rights advocates in Ontario. A central complaint of opponents of the new model was that ‘privatizing’ the human rights enforcement model would exclude the worst off in society who would lose their access to justice without a strong Commission advocating on their behalf (see this piece by Avy Go, for example).
On the other hand, some HR advocates argued that the Commission was failing victims of discrimination under the other model, and that even when the Commission proceeded with complaints, huge delays, and the fact that the Commission’s interests were not always the same meant that complainants rarely received any sort of real justice or remedy. (see the submission of the Income Security Advocacy Centre in the Bill 107 consultations)
It remains to be seen whether the new model will prove to be an improvement over the earlier model.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Guest Blog: Michael Lynk on Hydro-Quebec & the Duty to Accommodate
next post
Wal-Mart Store Closing is Off to the Supremes

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
1h

Sounds like @elonmusk is working towards making Twitter utterly useless unless you buy his stupid blue checkmark.

Reply on Twitter 1640826019140517888 Retweet on Twitter 1640826019140517888 Like on Twitter 1640826019140517888 1 Twitter 1640826019140517888
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
peterframpton Peter Frampton @peterframpton ·
27 Mar

I have posted this before but ..

26 years ago, a gunman entered
Dunblane Primary School in Scotland,
killing 16 kids and a teacher. The UK
govt responded by enacting tight gun
control legislation. In the 9400+ days
since, there have been a total of O
school shootings in the UK.

Reply on Twitter 1640422829442121743 Retweet on Twitter 1640422829442121743 54627 Like on Twitter 1640422829442121743 199460 Twitter 1640422829442121743
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
josheidelson Josh Eidelson @josheidelson ·
22h

Scoop: Labor Board prosecutors have concluded Starbucks illegally refused to fairly negotiate at dozens of newly-unionized cafes across the country https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-28/starbucks-illegally-refused-to-bargain-on-zoom-nlrb-lawyer-says Starbucks’ refusal to negotiate if some workers participated via Zoom was illegal, NLRB general counsel says

Reply on Twitter 1640509028567506950 Retweet on Twitter 1640509028567506950 238 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 686 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.