Education providers are responsible for many things, including delivering a curriculum, managing the various other aspects of educational services, ensuring student safety, fostering pluralistic environments that respect human rights, and managing tension and conflict as they arise in the school setting. Schools ought to be a place for healthy discussions about acceptance and where a diversity of views can co-exist. Educators should communicate messages about difference in a fair and respectful manner and be sensitive to the views of everyone protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code. Students, staff and parents should realize that they cannot reasonably expect their own views and beliefs to be respected if they are not willing to respect the views and beliefs of others.

The Ontario Human Rights Code (Code) has always recognized the importance of protecting religious freedom. Under the Code, organizations, including education providers, have a duty to maintain environments free from discrimination and harassment based on creed. Education providers are responsible for accommodating creed-related needs to the point of undue hardship. However, some degree of hardship is acceptable.

The Code lists only three considerations when assessing whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship:

• Cost;
• Outside sources of funding, if any; and/or
• Health and safety requirements, if any.

No other factors can be properly considered. For example, business inconvenience, employee morale, third-party preferences, etc. are not valid factors in assessing whether an accommodation causes undue hardship.

The duty to accommodate requires that the most appropriate accommodation be determined and provided, again, to the point of undue hardship. Accommodation is considered appropriate if it results in equal opportunity to enjoy the same level of benefits and privileges experienced by others, or if it is proposed or adopted to achieve equal opportunity, and meets the individual’s creed-related needs. The most appropriate accommodation is the one that:

• Respects dignity (including autonomy, comfort and confidentiality);
• Responds to a person’s individualized needs; and
• Allows for integration and full participation.

In 2015, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) published its Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed (Creed Policy). The Creed Policy is the OHRC’s official interpretation of what the rights and responsibilities set out in the Code mean as they relate to the ground of creed. The OHRC’s policies set standards for how organizations should act to ensure compliance with the Code. They are frequently cited and applied by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and other legal decision-makers.

The OHRC’s Creed Policy provides practical examples of how the creed-based protections under the Code operate in everyday life. For example, it looks at how the duty to accommodate applies in situations where a person is adversely affected and prevented from observing a creed belief as a result of an organizational rule, practice, standard or requirement. In such situations, an education provider has a duty to accommodate the observance short of undue hardship.

The duty to accommodate creed beliefs extends to situations where prayer observances conflict with regular daily routines or school hours. Our policy provides the following example:

Example: A school board advises school administrators to accommodate students and staff who need to observe time-specific prayers, including when these occur during class time. Teachers are advised to keep in mind such prayer observances when scheduling exams, tests, class outings and overnight trips. Sample accommodations include designating private areas or a room for prayer observances; permitting use of a private washroom, or, if not possible, identifying a washroom within the school for washing before prayers; not requiring participation in school activities during obligatory congregational prayer observances; and allowing students and staff enough preparation time to observe Sabbath, especially during days when the sun sets early.

Religious and creed observances sometimes take communal forms. An education provider may consider offering on-site space to observe congregational forms of worship, as an inclusive design approach, where people require accommodation during normal school hours to fulfill congregational worship needs.

Example: A high school permits the use of a designated private space to accommodate the weekly Friday congregational prayer observances of its large Muslim student population.

An inclusive design approach that accommodates the needs of the group is generally preferred to removing barriers after they become apparent, or making “one-off” accommodations. This is because it enables accessibility and inclusivity from the start, proactively meets the needs of many people, and minimizes the need for people to ask for individual accommodations.

Occasionally, different creed adherents or persons with other human rights-related needs may have competing demands for spaces designated for creed observances. In these cases, the OHRC recommends that organizations apply the OHRC’s framework for reconciling competing rights set out in its 2012 Policy on competing human rights.

When accommodating or inclusively designing to meet the “needs of the group,” education providers must:

• Make clear to all involved or affected that this is not an organizationally sponsored activity or endorsement of a particular creed, but rather a way of meeting individuals' religious accommodation needs
• Be aware of how the participation of persons in positions of power or authority may be received, avoiding exerting indirect pressure, or appearing partisan
• Be as inclusive as possible in developing and providing the accommodation, by consulting with as many directly affected parties as possible, and being attentive to internal group dynamics and differences in accommodation needs
• Treat members of all creed groups requiring accommodation equally, including minorities within creed groups, neither privileging nor disadvantaging, endorsing nor condoning any one over another
• Maintain an environment that is free of pressure or compulsion in matters of religion and belief
• Not interfere in, or become entangled in, what are purely religious or creed matters.

The OHRC will continue to use the full breadth of its mandate to ensure that Ontario is a place where everyone is valued and treated with equal dignity and respect. We call on all Ontarians, and the institutions representing them at the local, municipal and provincial levels, to work towards this vision of a society where everyone can fully participate, no matter what their race, ancestry or religious beliefs or practices.

For more information, see the OHRC’s Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed (2015) and its Policy on competing human rights(2012).

CALL TO ACTION: Share our Policy statement on religious accommodation in schools and educate your network: https://t.co/eC7kaWYP5dpic.twitter.com/lc9s6wRBwV

— The OHRC (@OntHumanRights) March 31, 2017

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has released a Policy statement on religious accommodation in schools. 

CALL TO ACTION: Share our Policy statement on religious accommodation in schools and educate your network: https://t.co/eC7kaWYP5dpic.twitter.com/lc9s6wRBwV

— The OHRC (@OntHumanRights) March 31, 2017

Toronto – Today, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) released With learning in mind, a new inquiry report that describes systemic barriers that students with mental health disabilities experience in post-secondary schools. It also outlines the changes the OHRC called for in college and university policies and programs, and the progress these institutions have made in implementing the changes.

In 2016, the OHRC wrote to public colleges and universities in Ontario asking them to implement six specific measures to reduce systemic barriers to post-secondary education for students with mental health disabilities.

Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane is available for media interviews on June 8, 2017.

See also:

• Policy position on medical documentation to be provided when a disability-related accommodation request is made (2017)
• Policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability (2016)
• Policy on preventing discrimination based on mental health disabilities and addictions (2014)
• Minds that matter: Report on the consultation on human rights, mental health and addictions (2012)

NEW | Our inquiry report on academic accommodation and #mentalhealth is online! Share: https://t.co/wDO5ueFwnC#LearningInMindpic.twitter.com/LRKNxflsZz

— The OHRC (@OntHumanRights) June 8, 2017

-30-

Media contact:

Vanessa Tamburro
Senior Communications Advisor (Acting)
Ontario Human Rights Commission
416 314 4528 | vanessa.tamburro@ohrc.on.ca  

معلومات إضافية للوافدين الجدد من سوريا

The Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) recognizes the dignity and worth of every person in Ontario. The Code provides for equal rights and opportunities, and freedom from discrimination. It applies to the areas of employment, housing, facilities and services (including education, health care, etc.), contracts, and membership in unions, trade or professional associations. It covers specific grounds, such as disability, creed, family status, sex, and gender identity.^[1]

Under the Code, employers and unions, housing providers and service providers have a legal duty to accommodate the Code-related needs of people who are adversely affected by a requirement, rule or standard. On many occasions, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed the duty to accommodate in the human rights context.^[2]

What is accommodation?

Accommodation means making adjustments to policies, rules, requirements and/or the built environment to ensure that people with Code-related needs have equal opportunities, access and benefits. Accommodation is necessary to address barriers in society that would otherwise prevent people from fully taking part in, and contributing to, the community.

Accommodation does not mean lowering essential qualification standards, which are the skills or attributes that one has to meet for a particular job, to graduate from a class or program, etc.

Accommodation is a shared responsibility. Everyone involved, including the person asking for accommodation, should cooperate in the process, share relevant information, and jointly explore accommodation solutions.

The Code prohibits discrimination that results from requirements, qualifications or factors that may appear neutral but that have an adverse effect on people identified by Code grounds. The Code provides for an organization to show that a requirement, qualification or factor that results in discrimination is nevertheless reasonable and bona fide (legitimate). However, to do this, the organization must show that the needs of the person cannot be accommodated without undue hardship.

Undue hardship

If an accommodation would legitimately cause an organization undue hardship, then the organization would not need to provide it. The Code sets out only three considerations when assessing whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship:

• cost
• outside sources of funding, if any
• health and safety requirements, if any.

The onus is on the organization to prove that the accommodation would cause undue hardship through evidence that is objective, real, direct and, in the case of cost, quantifiable. A mere statement, without supporting evidence, that the cost or risk is “too high” based on speculation or stereotypes will not be enough.

Example: A car dealer operates seven days a week and requires its employees to be available to work weekend hours, which are its busiest and most profitable business days. The requirement adversely affects Christian and Jewish employees with a creed that prohibits work on Sabbath days, which fall on the weekend. The business has a duty to accommodate these employees to the point of undue hardship.

Legal framework

The Supreme Court of Canada has set out a framework for examining whether the duty to accommodate has been met.^[3]If prima facie discrimination (or discrimination on its face) is found to exist, a respondent must establish on a balance of probabilities that the standard, factor, requirement or rule:

• was adopted for a purpose or goal that is rationally connected to the function being performed (such as a job, being a tenant, or taking part in a service)
• was adopted in good faith, in the belief that it is necessary to fulfil the purpose or goal, and
• is reasonably necessary to accomplish its purpose or goal, in the sense that it is impossible to accommodate the claimant without undue hardship.

As a result of this test, the rule or standard itself must be inclusive of as many people as possible and must accommodate individual differences up to the point of undue hardship. This makes sure that each person is assessed according to their own personal abilities. The ultimate issue is whether the organization or individual providing accommodation has shown that they have done so up to the point of undue hardship.

Once appropriate accommodation is received, a person must still be able to meet the essential requirements of the job, service, housing, etc. An appropriate accommodation for a student with a disability at university, for example, would enable the student to successfully meet the essential requirements of the program, with no alteration in qualification standards or outcomes, although the way that the student demonstrates mastery, knowledge and skills may be altered. 

Example: A university professor in a nursing program requires all students to demonstrate proficiency in her course by passing an in-class essay test worth 100% of the student’s final grade. The primary aim of the course is to teach students clinical evaluation methodology. A student identifies that she has a disability that makes it difficult to process large amounts of written material under strict time constraints. The university’s disability services office arranges for the student to be able to complete an independent study over the course of the semester that allows her to show mastery of the material and proficiency in the course. In this way, the university is able to provide the student with an accommodation that allows her to enjoy the same level of benefits and meet the requirements for acquiring an education, without the risk of compromising academic integrity.

The onus is on an organization to show that a person is incapable of performing the essential duties of a job, requirements of a service, housing, etc., even with accommodation. Conclusions about inability to perform essential duties or requirements must not be reached without actually testing the person’s abilities, and organizations must keep in mind that the testing format itself may need to accommodate an individual’s needs. It is not enough for an organization to assume that a person cannot perform an essential duty or requirement – there must be an objective determination of that fact.

Accommodation is essential

The Code provides for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination. Accommodation is essential if these rights are to be realized. Human rights would be functionally meaningless if the needs of Code-protected groups were not taken into account through the process of accommodation. By making adjustments to the standard way of doing things, organizations are fulfilling their legal responsibility to remove the barriers that prevent people covered by the Code from fully taking part in, and contributing to the community.

Just as students were headed back to school, a vigorous debate was unfolding on the pages of this paper (and others) about the accommodation of students with mental health disabilities. Unfortunately, this debate has been dominated by professors and columnists whose expertise lies outside human rights law and whose opinions do not adequately take into account the lived experience of discrimination.

Today the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) released a policy statement reinforcing what the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly affirmed: that employers, landlords and service providers have a legal duty to accommodate the needs of people protected under human rights laws.

Accommodation means adjusting policies, rules, requirements and/or the built environment so that historically marginalized groups have equal opportunities. Most accommodations are uncontroversial: installing ramps, providing sign language interpretation, designating gender-neutral washrooms, allowing service dogs in public spaces, or providing private areas for breastfeeding.

Those who deride accommodation tend to focus on evolving areas of the law, such as accommodation of students with mental health disabilities, to raise alarm bells about Canada becoming a nanny state. They imply that the human rights enterprise will ultimately result in society of coddled people who cannot withstand the harsh and competitive reality of the modern world.

This is simply not true. Accommodation does not require “lowering” essential qualification standards. Once a student’s human rights-related needs are accommodated, they must be able to meet the essential requirements of their academic program. If they cannot, they can face negative consequences the same as any other student.

At its core, the current debate is really about whether seemingly neutral requirements are essential. For example, law professors have traditionally tested knowledge, critical thinking and problem-solving by requiring students to complete a time-limited final exam worth 100 per cent of the student’s grade. Given this historical practice, it is not particularly surprising that some professors complain about accommodations that allow students with mental health disabilities additional time. But, if we agree that there are many ways of testing knowledge, critical thinking and problem-solving (the essential skills), then these accommodations are entirely appropriate. Indeed, this is why many law professors now assign 24-hour, take-home exams.

On the flip side, since the essential qualification for an athlete competing in a 100-metre dash is speed, an accommodation that affords additional time would neither be appropriate nor required under human rights law.

The hard truth is, not all subjectively desired qualifications are objectively essential. Just because a professor might prefer a student who does not require additional time on an exam, does not make the absence of mental disability an essential qualification. Instead, a careful, good faith inquiry into the truly necessary qualifications must be undertaken.

Failure to appreciate this important difference is itself the result of stereotyping and persistent stigma that subtly reinforces the view that historically disadvantaged groups are less capable of performing a wide variety of functions in our society or less desirable as students or employees. In fact, much of the OHRC’s work focuses on objective requirements that nonetheless result in negative outcomes for groups protected under Ontario’s Human Rights Code.

While this may be threatening to those who have historically had a stronghold on privilege, our laws require organizations to assess people as individuals. Organizations must take stereotypes, personal preferences and institutional culture out of the equation. Each person should be able to obtain an education suited to their skills, interests and abilities, even if they have legitimate needs that must be accommodated.

Inclusion is in our interests as a society—accommodation is a practical way to allow diverse people to meet their full potential and contribute to our collective prosperity. Failure to create safe and welcoming educational institutions for diverse people reinforces marginalization and can result in poverty and a greater reliance on the social safety net. Statistics Canada data shows that people with disabilities are less likely to have a university degree or participate in the labour force, and more likely to be unemployed or have a low income.

The legal protection of equality has played an important role in creating the Canada that so many people around the world look to for leadership. That is why we cannot be sidetracked by debates that cast students who require accommodation as burdens on otherwise high-functioning academic institutions. Such debates are divisive and underestimate the huge potential that we can harness if everyone has a stake in our future.

Renu Mandhane
Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission

Read article in the Huffington Post (10/13/2017)

Don't confuse accommodating mental health with lowering standards.

Read Chief Commissioner @RenuMandhane's blog post in @HuffPostCanada: https://t.co/uGGIbup8QFpic.twitter.com/3q26wEdrYI

— The OHRC (@OntHumanRights) October 13, 2017

Toronto – Today, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) released a new policy statement explaining the purpose and importance of the duty to accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code).

Employers and unions, housing providers and service providers have a legal duty to accommodate the Code-related needs of people who are adversely affected by a requirement, rule or standard. Accommodation is necessary to address barriers in society that would otherwise prevent people from fully taking part in, and contributing to, the community.

See also:

• Mental health disabilities shouldn't be a barrier to student success (Op-Ed)
• Duty to accommodate (Policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability, 2016)
• Meeting the accommodation needs of employees on the job (Human Rights at Work)
• How far does the duty to accommodate go? (Fact sheet)
• Human rights and the duty to accommodate (eLearning)

TODAY: New OHRC policy statement explains the duty to accommodate under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. Get the story: https://t.co/Ph81RYUvXmpic.twitter.com/Y8MNuQ52R9

— The OHRC (@OntHumanRights) October 12, 2017

-30-

Media contact:

Alicia Ann Pereira
Ontario Human Rights Commission
416-314-4558 | aliciaann.pereira@ohrc.on.ca

OHRC launches online videos on its Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities

The OHRC has released videotapes of a training session on our new Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities. OHRC Senior Policy Analyst Cherie Robertson leads you through key elements of the policy, including:

• The vital importance of education to a person’s social, academic and economic development – and the need for accessibility and accommodation in the process
• A broad definition of disability
• Up-to-date information about human rights and responsibilities for students, parents and educators
• Practical guidance to education providers to meet their legal duty to accommodate

The training session is presented in two videos (Part 1 – 48 minutes and Part 2 – 37 minutes) suitable for viewing on larger screens for group viewing. Wherever possible, audience questions and answers have been included.

The videos are available in English, with both English and French captioning options. As well, each video features ASL translation.

View the videos on YouTube: http://bit.ly/2FAueV0

Hon. Lisa Thompson
Minister of Education
5th Flr, 438 University Ave
Toronto, ON M7A 2A5

Dear Minister Thompson,

I trust this letter finds you well. I am writing today about the Ministry of Education’s consultation on service animals in schools to provide input from the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC).

The OHRC generally supports the overall intent of the Ministry’s draft Policy/Program Memorandum (PPM) for school board policies on service animals in schools. The draft PPM appropriately recognizes that under Ontario’s Human Rights Code (Code), school boards have a duty to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities, including the use of service animals, up to the point of undue hardship. The OHRC also supports the requirement for school board policies to have components on communication with parties, accommodation process, protocol for health and safety concerns, roles and responsibilities, training, policy review and data collection.

At the same time, we recommend strengthening the draft PPM by revising it to recognize that the duty to accommodate disability also includes individual needs not related to learning needs. Also, the PPM should make clear that service animal policies must not automatically limit animal species and disability-related functions or animal training and certification. Any requirements related to service animal handling, care and training must be legitimate and defensible under the Code. Finally, we recommend that service animal policies acknowledge students with disabilities can take part in the accommodation process and that they have a right to privacy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Duty to accommodate disability in services may include needs not related to learning needs

1. Change the first Ministry expectation under the draft PPM to also allow a student to use a service animal in school to accommodate disability needs not related to learning needs.

The draft PPM expects school boards to, “allow students to be accompanied by service animals in school when doing so would be an appropriate accommodation to support students’ learning needs.” We believe that limiting disability accommodation to only “learning needs” is not a proper interpretation of the Code.

Even when not related to the service provided, an educational institution or other organization must permit personal forms of disability accommodation, such as use of an emotional support service animal, a wheelchair, medical cannabis, etc., unless the organization can show a bona fide reasonable requirement defensible under the Code in the circumstances.

An educational institution might have a further obligation to help facilitate a personal accommodation not related to learning needs, depending on the circumstance, particularly in a situation like elementary education where responsibilities towards students are broad and include a child’s overall wellbeing.

No Code limit on service animal species or function

2. School board service animal policies must not automatically limit the species of animal or disability-related function that could be accommodated.

The OHRC’s Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities and the related case law confirm that the duty to accommodate service animals under the Code is not limited to dogs and could include other types of animals. Service animals might also perform different functions to accommodate needs related to various types of disabilities such as autism, hearing, vision or mental health conditions. A person might need to show how the type and function of their service animal assists with their disability-related needs.

No Code requirement for professional service animal training

3. School board service animal policies must not automatically exclude animals that lack designated professional training or certification.

The OHRC’s Policy and the related case law confirm that service animals do not necessarily have to be trained or certified by a recognized disability-related organization.

However, where it is not immediately obvious that the animal is performing a disability-related service, a person must be able to show evidence (such as a letter from a doctor or other qualified medical professional) that they have a disability and that the animal assists with their disability-related needs. Service providers and others who receive such documentation should not use their own assumptions and observations to second-guess this verification.

Bona fide reasonable requirements might be defensible under the Code

The Code might permit bona fide and reasonable requirements or factors related to a disability accommodation, such as the service animal handling, care and training, if an organization can show such factors are defensible under section 11 of the Code and the related case law. Even if a requirement is legitimate and defensible, an exception still might be warranted in individual circumstances, unless undue hardship (significant health and safety risks or excessive costs) would result.

Also, the OHRC’s Policy recognizes that there may be some situations where the use of a service animal in school could potentially conflict with the rights of other people, such as disability-related allergies, fear or anxiety. The OHRC’s Policy on competing human rights provides a framework for analyzing competing rights situations. Steps should be taken to minimize conflict, wherever possible, through cooperative problem-solving, proper training of staff and students, and raising public awareness of the education provider’s legal obligations relating to the use of service animals.

Students with disabilities can take part in the accommodation process and have a right to privacy

4. Acknowledge in the PPM that school board policies must allow a student with a disability to take part in the process for determining an appropriate accommodation for their service animal, and that the process should maximize the student’s right to privacy.

The OHRC’s Policy on accessible education says that education providers “must take all necessary steps to… put students with disabilities at the centre of all decision-making processes.” Students with disabilities should have the opportunity to take part in the accommodation process based on their abilities, maturity and age.

The OHRC’s Policy also identifies the responsibility of education providers to maximize a student’s right to privacy and confidentiality, including only sharing information about the student’s disability with those directly involved in the accommodation process.

The OHRC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Ministry’s draft PPM. We would be pleased to discuss this submission further with you or your staff.

Sincerely,

Renu Mandhane, B.A., J.D., LL.M.
Chief Commissioner

cc:       Hon. Caroline Mulroney, Attorney General
           Hon. Raymond Cho, Minister for Seniors and Accessibility
           OHRC Commissioners

All students deserve to see themselves and their families reflected in Ontario’s mandatory education curriculum, and should receive information necessary to protect their health and well-being. Over the past year, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has taken many steps to make this vision a reality. We provided a submission to inform the government during its education consultation, and intervened in AB v Ontario, a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario case challenging the 2018 Health and Physical Education curriculum as discriminatory.

The OHRC notes the release of the 2019 Health and Physical Education curriculum. The OHRC commends the government on reintroducing and in some cases improving the mandatory content on sexual orientation and homophobia, diverse families, sexual and gender-based harassment and consent. The mandatory content on mental health and substance use will help position Ontario as a leader.

However, delaying mandatory content on gender identity and gender expression until Grade 8 is a step backwards. Children must receive timely access to information to protect their health and well-being, break down stigma and have inclusive learning environments. Research shows that transgender children and youth are extremely marginalized, have high rates of depression and suicide, and experience isolation and harassment, including in school.

The OHRC is also concerned that the government is requiring schools boards to allow parents to exempt their child from the Human Development and Sexual Health curriculum for any reason. The curriculum is meant to provide all children in Ontario with the information they need to be healthy and safe. Allowing parents to exempt children for reasons that go beyond religious accommodation undermines this goal.

The OHRC urges school boards and teachers to address LGBTQ2+ identities as much as possible when teaching the Human Development and Sexual Health curriculum – and to embed this learning in other parts of the curriculum, and in other school programs and activities. We also recommend that school boards collect detailed data on exemptions, and use this information to assess whether the exemption policies are having discriminatory effects on certain students.

Report and recommendations on homelessness in Kenora

Ontario Human Rights Commission

This report summarizes the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s (OHRC) observations and recommendations on the issues of homelessness and drug addiction in Kenora, Ontario. Under section 29 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the OHRC can initiate reviews and inquiries and make recommendations related to incidents of tension or conflict in a community.

The OHRC is releasing this report in advance of the re-opening of the Kenora emergency shelter in the Knox Church at 116 5th Ave South (Shelter) on September 26. The goal of this report is to assist the community as it moves forward to tackle serious social issues that are causing tension and conflict in the community and broader region.

At the outset, the OHRC would like to acknowledge that Kenora is in Treaty 3 territory and is the traditional territory of the Ojibway and Chippewa peoples. It is also the home of the historic Rainy Lake/Lake of the Woods Métis community.

The OHRC thanks all the individuals and organizations that spoke to us and shared their perspectives on the urgent issues facing the community. Everyone we spoke to was candid and open about the challenges they are facing, and eager to hear our ideas about solutions. Many people noted that it was meaningful and important for community members to feel seen and heard by the OHRC.

The OHRC recognizes that many positive steps are being taken to address acute homelessness and drug addiction, which disproportionately affect First Nations people living in the community. However, in our view, the success of those initiatives is hindered by a lack of effective communication between government agencies and the Indigenous-led organizations that provide services on the ground, as well as systemic issues related to housing and social services.

As set out in more detail below, the OHRC urges the Kenora District Services Board (KDSB) and the City of Kenora (City) to develop more robust communications with the Ne-Chee Friendship Centre, First Nations leaders and community members, and other Indigenous-led service providers. This will ensure that the needs of service users are accurately identified and appropriately met. Higher levels of government must also take steps to provide immediate financial and technical support to address the homelessness emergency, and to address the systemic barriers that exist that are preventing the needs of vulnerable and marginalized people in Kenora from being met.

Perhaps most importantly, there needs to be a culture shift in terms of how leaders and service providers understand and meet the needs of marginalized and vulnerable people who call Kenora home. It must start with accepting that all people are welcome in Kenora, and that all people are entitled to basic dignity and respect. At minimum, it requires understanding and accepting their lived experiences and developing solutions that put their needs at the centre of decision-making. Homelessness and addiction are difficult social problems, but they must be addressed directly and honestly. They cannot and will not be solved by pushing vulnerable people out of sight.

OHRC engagements in Kenora

These observations and recommendations are based on two visits to Kenora by OHRC Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane and OHRC staff. In February 2017, the Chief Commissioner met Ogichidaa Grand Chief Francis Kavanaugh of Treaty 3 territory, Ne-Chee Friendship Centre leadership and First Nations community members who attended a traditional sharing circle. The Chief Commissioner also toured and met with management, staff and prisoners at the Kenora Jail. She heard first-hand about challenges faced by First Nations people related to education, child welfare, policing, corrections and housing. A common theme was the need for stronger cooperation between government institutions, including the City, and Indigenous communities.

During the 2017 visit, the Chief Commissioner also met with then-Mayor David Canfield and later wrote him to encourage the City to approve changes to its Zoning Bylaw to allow the Shelter to operate in the downtown area. The OHRC referred to In the Zone, its guide on human rights in municipal planning, and offered to provide related training.

In July 2019, the Chief Commissioner wrote to Mayor Daniel Reynard and members of City Council to congratulate the City on taking steps to facilitate the development of shelters, social housing and other affordable housing through amendments to its Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw. The OHRC was pleased that the City contacted us about efforts to address its housing shortage, and to request staff-level guidance on strategies to ensure human rights are upheld in municipal planning. The OHRC noted that secure and affordable housing is an essential step toward addressing poverty and providing for safe, stable and equitable communities.

On August 9, 2019, upon learning that the Shelter would be temporarily shut down on August 12, the Chief Commissioner wrote Minister of Indigenous Affairs Greg Rickford, who is also the MPP for Kenora-Rainy River. The letter stressed that the decision to temporarily close the Shelter would have a disproportionate negative impact on Indigenous peoples and would force seniors and young women at risk of trafficking to fend for themselves on the streets of Kenora. The OHRC called on the Government of Ontario and/or the KDSB to reconsider and/or delay its decision to close the Shelter and to adopt an evidence-based approach to address the current drug crisis. The Chief Commissioner also requested an urgent meeting with the Minister.

Minister Rickford responded on August 16, 2019 (Appendix A). The Minister clarified that the KDSB made the decision to temporarily close the Shelter in response to “overwhelming concerns from the community,” which were also communicated to him in his capacity as MPP. He went on to state that “it is within my capacity as the MPP that I have been working closely with local partners, businesses and concerned citizens who have significant concerns for the safety of residents, visitors and employees located downtown.” Beyond a reference to increased calls for service to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), the Minister did not state that crime had increased in the community or that the Shelter had directly caused harm to residents, visitors or downtown employees. The Minister did not outline his efforts to work closely with Indigenous leaders or social service providers. He noted that he would be “happy to discuss this further” with the Chief Commissioner. Despite the OHRC following up to schedule a meeting, no meeting has been scheduled.

The Shelter closure was delayed one week to August 17 to find beds for existing Shelter users. Unfortunately, despite this delay, we understand that some Shelter users were not able to obtain emergency housing and are now homeless.

After moving forward with the temporary closure, the KDSB invited the Chief Commissioner to attend their September Board meeting. The Chief Commissioner also received letters from Sioux-Lookout Mayor Doug Lawrance (Appendix B).

The Chief Commissioner attended the KDSB Board meeting in Dryden, Ontario on September 12 and met with Board members, Chief Administrative Officer Henry Wall and senior staff. At the meeting, the KDSB advised that approximately 95% of homeless individuals in Kenora identify as First Nations. KDSB provided the OHRC with qualitative and quantitative materials about the social context (Appendix C). The background materials show that:

• The waiting list for housing in the District of Kenora has increased by 186% since 2011
• The KDSB supported over 13,383 nightly stays for 1,470 individuals in emergency shelters
• The most common reasons given by individuals staying at the emergency shelter included: the judicial system (waiting for court, released from jail or on bail), medical services, missed transportation, escaping violence, “kicked out” or because the individual had no other place to go
• Sixty-two per cent of homeless individuals in the District of Kenora identified addiction or substance use as one of the reasons for their homelessness
• In 2017, there were 18,329 calls for service to the OPP detachment in Kenora and 5,107 calls for service to the KDSB’s Northwest EMS. Kenora’s population is 15,096.

The KDSB also drew the OHRC’s attention to the 1973 report While People Sleep, which documented sudden deaths of Indigenous people in Kenora, most often involving alcohol addiction. That report called on the federal and provincial governments to take “immediate and positive” action to address the crisis, including improved coordination of social services and greater consultation with Indigenous people. One member of the Board lamented that “nothing has changed.”

Between September 11 and 13, the Chief Commissioner and OHRC staff also travelled to Kenora and met with:

• Ogichidaa Grand Council Treaty 3 Chief Francis Kavanaugh and Executive Director of Grand Council Treaty 3, Samuel Tanyi-Mbianyor
• Wauzhushk Onigum First Nation Chief Chris Skead
• Nee Chee Friendship Centre Executive Director Patti Fairfield and Board Chair Marlene Elder
• Management and staff of the Shelter
• Members of the Kenora Police Services Board, including Sara Dias (Executive Director of the Canadian Mental Health Association-Kenora), Mayor Dan Reynard, and past-Mayor David Canfield
• OPP Kenora Detachment Commander Jeffrey Duggan and Detachment Manager Adam Illman
• Executive Director Yvonne Bearbull and management and staff of the Fellowship Centre
• Users of the Shelter and the Fellowship Centre
• CEO of the Northwestern Health Unit Marilyn Herbacz
• Medical Officer of Health Kit Young Hoon.

In its meeting with the OPP and Kenora Police Services Board, the OHRC was advised that there had been a slight drop in the year-over-year rate of violent crimes, drug crimes and property crimes.

The OHRC also received information and documents from a confidential source, including postings from the social media group “Rant n Rave-Kenora.”

Key observations

Based on the totality of the information, the OHRC makes the following observations:

• Northwestern Ontario faces unique and growing social service challenges that have a disparate negative impact on First Nations peoples. These challenges are related to:
  
  • intergenerational trauma associated with residential schools and the “Sixties Scoop”
  • persistent racism and discrimination against First Nations peoples
  • a lack of social supports and economic opportunities for Indigenous peoples, both on reserve and in the region’s urban areas
  • high rates of alcohol and drug addiction without adequate treatment or support
  • a severe housing shortage
  • a shortage of skilled healthcare and social service workers
  • geographic isolation, remoteness and a lack of affordable public transportation
  • a relatively small tax base.
• Kenora is facing an immediate homelessness and drug addiction crisis which has a disproportionate impact on First Nations people who live in the city. It’s a crisis where loss of life is foreseeable (see Appendix D). The immediate crisis is related to:
  
  • the forced displacement of vulnerable people, including people with addictions and mental health disabilities, who had been living in a substandard low-rise apartment building (Lila’s Place), coupled with fires that demolished two other low-income apartments in recent years
  • the recent arrival of methamphetamine (“crystal meth”) from Winnipeg and associated health and safety-related issues
  • the closure of other emergency shelter services at the Fellowship Centre due to lack of sustainable funding.
• While the City and KDSB are genuinely committed to addressing this crisis, their effectiveness has been impeded by:
  
  • poor communication with and between social service providers
  • pressure being exerted on service providers to achieve desired outcomes without always respecting their opinions or working with them to address their concerns
  • a lack of trust and poor communication with First Nations leaders and Indigenous-led service providers
  • failure to put the needs of the most vulnerable people at the centre of all decisions
  • ignoring or minimizing persistent racism and discrimination against First Nations peoples who live in Kenora.
• Despite a drop in violent crimes, drug crimes and property crimes, the City, KDSB and OPP have taken specific actions that have – whether intentionally or not – increased the stigma and fear associated with shelter users, homeless or street-involved people and/or intravenous drug users without providing sufficient evidence to justify these heavy-handed measures. Examples include:
  
  • delaying amendments to the Zoning Bylaw and thereby legitimizing rather than addressing public controversy over the location of the Shelter
  • replacing grassy areas and public stairwells with rocks to deter street-involved or homeless people from using public spaces (see Appendix D)
  • seizing or destroying the personal belongings of homeless people who have been relegated to “tent cities” on the outskirts of downtown
  • temporarily closing the Shelter without educating the community on the reasons for closure
  • announcing the Shelter closure at a press conference with Minister Rickford, who framed it as a measure to reclaim the city from shelter users (“We want our city back”).

Recommendations

Based on these key observations, the OHRC makes the following recommendations to assist Kenora with addressing the immediate and long-term challenges identified above.

To the KDSB

1. Before reopening the Shelter on September 26:
   
   1. meet with shelter users to understand their experiences and needs, and to communicate what they can expect over the short term
   2. ensure robust communication with the Ne-Chee Friendship Centre to clarify expectations and understand what they need to provide a safe environment for shelter users and staff
   3. ensure robust communication with all relevant social service providers to ensure they understand what is happening and how it might affect their services
   4. host a community forum in collaboration with the City and Ne-Chee Friendship Centre to provide relevant information about the re-opening of the Shelter, dispel any possible misconceptions, answer any questions and seek the community’s support.
2. Continue to create forums for all social service providers to share knowledge and information, both from Western and Indigenous world views and perspectives. Everyone should be able to participate equally. Meetings should be co-chaired with Indigenous leaders and adopt a culturally appropriate format like a sharing circle. Appropriate Elders should be identified and invited to provide guidance and reflections.
3. Meet with and understand the diverse needs and perspectives of shelter users, homeless people and/or intravenous drug users and front-line service providers; and ensure that all policies, programs and initiatives are responsive to their identified needs and do not increase stigma or discrimination.
4. Consistent with Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Call to Action 57, undertake and require regular cultural safety training developed in collaboration with local First Nations communities and Indigenous-led organizations.

To the City of Kenora

5. Meet with and understand the diverse needs and perspectives of shelter users, homeless people and/or intravenous drug users and front-line service providers; and ensure that all policies, programs and initiatives are responsive to their identified needs and do not increase stigma or discrimination.
6. Create a working group that includes diverse community members and Indigenous peoples to report on the lived experience of racism and discrimination in Kenora (similar to the 1974 While we Sleep report).
7. Consistent with TRC Call to Action 57, undertake and require regular cultural safety training developed in collaboration with local First Nations communities and Indigenous-led organizations.

To all regional, municipal, social service and Indigenous stakeholders

8. Work collaboratively to develop and implement a poverty reduction and affordable housing strategy.
9. Work collaboratively to develop and implement a harm reduction strategy to address the health and social needs of intravenous drug users, with time-bound commitments and measurable outcomes.
10. Work collaboratively to create an outreach and education campaign to combat the stigma associated with homelessness and drug addiction.
11. Consistent with TRC Call to Action 43, work collaboratively with First Nations and Indigenous leaders to develop an action plan to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation and anti-racism activities.

To the provincial and federal governments:

12. Provide immediate financial and technical support to address the homelessness emergency in Kenora region.
13. Meet with municipal governments the KDSB, social service stakeholders and diverse Indigenous peoples to understand their concerns about homelessness and drug addiction, and systemic barriers to meeting related needs.
14. Provide all required technical and financial assistance to help with developing and implementing action plans related to poverty reduction, affordable housing, harm reduction and implementation of the TRC Calls to Action.
15. Consistent with TRC Call to Action 43, work collaboratively with First Nations and Indigenous leaders to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation.

Appendixes available on request to info@ohrc.on.ca

Appendix A: Letter from the Honourable Greg Rickford, Minister of Indigenous Affairs and MPP for Kenora-Rainy River to Ontario Human Rights Commission Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane, August 16, 2019.

Appendix B: Letters from Mayor Doug Lawrance, the Municipality of Sioux Lookout to Ontario Human Rights Commission Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane, September 4, 2019 and September 17, 2019.

Appendix C: Briefing note from Kenora District Services Board to Ontario Human Rights Commission Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane, September 12, 2019.

Appendix D: Photos taken during the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s visit to Kenora, Ontario, September 11–13, 2019.

Hon. Stephen Lecce
Minister of Education
5th Flr, 438 University Ave
Toronto, ON M7A 2A5
 

Dear Minister Lecce,

I trust this letter finds you well. On behalf of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), congratulations on your appointment as Minister of Education. In its 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, the OHRC identified education as a focus area and committed to identifying and addressing the systemic discrimination children and youth face in education.

I am writing today about the Ministry of Education’s newly released PPM No. 163 – School Board Policies on Service Animals. In May 2019, I wrote to your predecessor to make a submission to the Ministry’s consultation on the draft PPM. As I indicted in May, the OHRC generally supports the overall intent of the PPM. It appropriately recognizes that under the Code, school boards have a duty to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities up to the point of undue hardship, and that nothing in the PPM detracts from a school board’s legal obligations under the Code.

PPM No. 163 is generally consistent with the recommendations we made in our May submission. We said that school board policies must:

1. Allow a student to use a service animal in school to accommodate disability needs whether or not related to learning needs
2. Not automatically limit the species of animal or disability-related function that could be accommodated
3. Not automatically exclude animals that lack designated professional training or certification
4. Allow a student with a disability to take part in the process for determining an appropriate accommodation for their service animal, and make sure the process maximizes the student’s right to privacy.

We are pleased to see changes in the final PPM that address our first recommendation in particular. More specifically, PPM No. 163 now provides that school boards are to consider “how the service animal supports the student’s learning needs and/or disability-related needs.”

While not addressed directly in PPM No. 163, school board policies on service animals should also identify that schools and other parties in the process need to be open to exploring and testing solutions as part of the duty to accommodate. Students with disabilities should have the opportunity to take part in the accommodation process as well, based on their abilities, maturity and age.

We welcome any opportunity to meet to discuss this matter or other matters involving human rights and Ontario’s education system.

Sincerely,

Renu Mandhane, B.A., J.D., LL.M.
Chief Commissioner

cc:       Hon. Doug Downey, Attorney General
Hon. Raymond Cho, Minister for Seniors and Accessibility
Rusty Hick, Executive Director, Ontario Public School Boards' Association
Isabelle Girard, Direction générale, Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l’Ontario
Nick Milanetti, Executive Director, Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association
Janine Griffore, Directrice générale par interim, Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques
Lynn Ziraldo, Chair, AODA Standards Development Committee for K-12 Education
OHRC Commissioners

Protection of personal information and privacy safeguards policy: Reading Disabilities Inquiry
 

Contents

Introduction
Reading disabilities Inquiry
Privacy safeguards
I.     Administrative safeguards
      a.     Minimizing data
      b.     Consent
      c.     Authorized personnel
      d.     Responsibilities of the RD Inquiry Team
      e.     Responsibilities of non-RD Inquiry OHRC staff
      f.      Responsibilities of the RD Inquiry Lead for privacy matters
      g.     Acknowledgement
      h.     The Retained Expert
II.     Physical safeguards
      a.     Access card
      b.     Office
      c.     Hard copies
      d.     Printing
III.     Electronic safeguards
      a.     OHRC Computers
      b.     OHRC laptops
      c.     Email
      d.     Fax
      e.     Off-site
      f.      Storage
      g.     Text
Conclusion

Protection of personal information and privacy safeguards policy: Reading Disabilities Inquiry

October 3, 2019

Introduction

1. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) recognizes the importance of protecting personal information.
2. To protect human dignity and maintain public trust and confidence in the OHRC as an institution, the OHRC works hard to comply with all relevant laws that relate to the handling personal information.
3. As a provincial public institution, the OHRC must abide by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).[1]
4. The Chief Commissioner, the head of the OHRC, has a duty to take objectively reasonable steps and measures to:
   
   • Ensure the preservation of records in the OHRC’s custody and control
   • Ensure the security of original records
   • Protect records from inadvertent destruction or damage, “taking into account the nature of the records to be protected.”[2]
5. OHRC staff have a duty to exercise due diligence in ensuring that personal information is protected.

Reading disabilities Inquiry

6. Using its inquiry powers under s. 31 of the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code), the OHRC has commenced an inquiry (the RD Inquiry) into human rights issues that affect students with reading disabilities in Ontario’s public education system.
7. As part of the RD Inquiry, the OHRC has requested documents and information from eight public school boards in Ontario: Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, Lakehead District School Board, London District Catholic School Board, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, Peel District School Board, Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board, and Thames Valley District School Board (the selected school boards). The information requested may include “personal information” within the definition of FIPPA. Because the information requested relates to children, it may also be of a sensitive nature.

Privacy safeguards

8. The more sensitive the personal information collected, the more stringent the security measures adopted must be to mitigate the risk of a privacy breach.[3]
9. The purpose of this policy is to:

1. Identify and explain the privacy safeguards that the OHRC has and/or will have in place relating to the RD Inquiry
2. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of OHRC staff involved in the RD Inquiry
3. Show that the potential privacy implications of the RD Inquiry have been considered.

I.     Administrative safeguards

a.     Minimizing data

10. The first step to protect the privacy of personal information is to minimize, to the extent possible, the personal information that comes into the OHRC’s custody.
11. In securing compliance with the OHRC’s document requests, the OHRC will work with the selected school boards to ensure that personal identifying information collected by the OHRC is minimized.
12. If the OHRC is provided with access to personal information, it will at the earliest possible stage adopt measures to minimize the collection of personal identifying information. This can be achieved by using templates that do not include a person’s name or other personal information that would identify them, and by anonymizing the data obtained.
13. The OHRC does not intend to disclose personal information obtained from the selected school boards through the RD Inquiry. The OHRC’s report relating to the RD Inquiry will not contain personal information that identifies any particular individual. 
14. The OHRC will destroy any personal information as soon as reasonably possible after it is no longer required.

b.     Consent

15. Before the OHRC has access to personal information from the selected school boards, the OHRC will provide notice of collection of personal information on its website. Individuals who believe that their personal information may be affected will be able to contact the OHRC. They may also contact the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
16. The OHRC may also obtain personal information through interviews or surveys with voluntary participants. Before conducting an interview, the OHRC will obtain the person’s consent. Surveys will require individuals to provide their consent for the information to be collected. To the extent possible, information contained in the inquiry report will be aggregated and/or anonymized. However, if it is possible that a particular individual could be identified – but the person’s informed consent will be obtained before any personal information is disclosed.

c.     Authorized personnel

17. Access to any personal information obtained through the RD Inquiry is strictly limited to OHRC staff who are on the Inquiry Team.
18. The Privacy Lead will keep a list of individuals on the Inquiry Team. No OHRC staff other than the Inquiry Team will have access to personal information. Inquiry Team members may be added or changed as needed. 

d.     Responsibilities of the RD Inquiry Team

19. The Inquiry Team must comply with all privacy safeguards set out in this policy.
20. The Inquiry Team must exercise reasonable judgment when handling personal information, depending on the sensitivity of the data, nature of the information and use.
21. As part of exercising privacy due diligence, the Inquiry Team should identify and address potential privacy concerns while performing their roles in the RD Inquiry.
22. The Inquiry Team must report a privacy breach or potential privacy breach to the Privacy Lead and Manager as soon as they become aware that a breach or potential breach has occurred.

e.     Responsibilities of non-RD Inquiry OHRC staff

23. OHRC staff not on the Inquiry Team must, to the extent possible, avoid encountering RD Inquiry-related personal information, and must keep confidential any RD Inquiry-related personal information that they may learn.
24. OHRC staff will consult with the Privacy Lead and the Inquiry Team if they have questions or concerns related to privacy matters.
25. OHRC staff must report a privacy breach or potential privacy breach to the Privacy Lead and Manager as soon as they become aware that a breach or potential breach has occurred.

f.     Responsibilities of the RD Inquiry Lead for privacy matters

26. At this time, the RD Inquiry Lead for Privacy Matters (Privacy Lead) is:

     Nika Farahani, Counsel, Legal Services and Inquiries

     Ontario Human Rights Commission
     180 Dundas Street West, 9^th Floor
     Toronto, Ontario M7A 2R9
     Telephone: 416 564 9246
     Email: nika.farahani@ohrc.on.ca

27. The Privacy Lead will act as the main contact person for public citizens and internal or external staff who have an RD Inquiry privacy question or concern.
28. The Privacy Lead will brief the Inquiry Team on the privacy-related requirements of FIPPA and the contents of this policy.
29. The Privacy Lead will frequently monitor and report on compliance with this policy to ensure that safeguards have been implemented, and that privacy due diligence continues to be applied throughout the RD Inquiry.

g.     Acknowledgement

30. Before having access to any personal information obtained through the RD Inquiry, all Inquiry Team members, whether internal or external to the OHRC, must voluntarily sign an acknowledgement that requires that they:
    
    • Have read this policy and understand the privacy safeguards herein
    • Keep any personal information in a secure location at all times
    • Ensure that no personal information is used or disclosed unless necessary and proper in the discharge of the OHRC’s functions
    • Ensure that no personal information is used or disclosed in a way that the person it relates to can be identified, without the prior informed consent of the person the information relates to.

h.     The Retained Expert

31. An expert (the Retained Expert) has been engaged to help analyze the RD Inquiry data. The expert retainer includes a confidentiality agreement between the Retained Expert and the OHRC.
32. To the extent that the Retained Expert has access to personal information, they must under no circumstances disclose if to anyone other than the Inquiry Team.
33. The Retained Expert shall not disclose or otherwise provide access to non-personal information and data obtained through the RD Inquiry, other than for the defined research purposes.
34. The Retained Expert will implement safeguards and protocols consistent with this policy and will consult with the Inquiry Team on any additional safeguards that may be required.

II.     Physical safeguards

a.     Access card

35. An access card is required to enter the OHRC office.
36. Staff must not permit unauthorized or uninvited people to enter into the OHRC office space.
37. Staff will notify security of suspicious activity in the OHRC vicinity.

b.     Office 

38. As much as possible, the Inquiry Team will turn their computer monitors off, put their computers in sleep mode or change screens to prevent others from seeing personal information on the screen.
39. Hard copy documents or files containing personal information must be kept in a central office/room that can be locked when unattended. When possible, the Inquiry Team should use a clean desk policy whereby personal information is kept out of sight, ideally in a locked drawer or filing cabinet.
40. When discussing RD Inquiry matters, Inquiry Team staff will close the door during their meetings to ensure that others do not overhear personal information.
41. The Inquiry Team will take all reasonable steps to ensure that third parties who may attend the OHRC office (invited guests, maintenance or cleaning staff) do not have access to personal information.  

c.     Hard copies

42. Hard copies of collected RD Inquiry materials, including any personal information, must be stored in a secure location, ideally raised off the floor to prevent flood damage and in a fire-resistant space.
43. When not in use, hard copies of collected RD Inquiry materials, including any personal information, must be locked in filing cabinets.

d.     Printing

44. The Inquiry Team should refrain from printing and photocopying any personal information.
45. The Inquiry Team must not leave any document containing personal information on the printer. If printing, staff should use Secure Print so that personal information does not print until the staff member goes to the printer to retrieve it.

III.     Electronic safeguards

a.     OHRC Computers

46. OHRC computers are password protected. The passwords automatically expire every 45 days.
47. The Windows firewall is enabled on all OHRC computers. The computers use McAfee software to protect them from virus and malware threats.
48. When working on RD Inquiry materials that contain personal information, staff must not use a personal or non-OHRC computer.

b.     OHRC laptops

49. OHRC laptops are password protected. The passwords automatically expire every 45 days.
50. The Windows firewall is enabled on all OHRC laptops. The laptops use McAfee software to protect them from virus and malware threats.
51. The hard drive of every OHRC laptop is encrypted. If a laptop is misplaced or lost, a finder should be unable to access the secure information.

c.     Email

52. The Inquiry Team will not use their personal emails for any RD Inquiry work that involves personal information.
53. No personal information shall be communicated or transmitted by email.

d.     Fax

54. No personal information shall be faxed anywhere.

e.     Off-site

55. If Inquiry Team members must work off-site, then they will use a Virtual Private Network (VPN) service.
56. The Inquiry Team shall not remove any personal information from the RD Inquiry data from the OHRC premises.

f.     Storage

57. Electronic information obtained during the RD Inquiry will be stored in a shared folder, accessible only by members of the Inquiry Team.

g.     Text

58. The Inquiry Team will not use instant messaging tools to discuss RD Inquiry material that includes personal information.

Conclusion

Protecting personal information is an ongoing responsibility. This policy was adopted at an early stage of the RD Inquiry and will be re-assessed on an ongoing basis.

Right to Read

Ontario Human Rights Commission Inquiry into human rights issues that affect students with reading disabilities in Ontario’s public education system

Terms of reference

October 3, 2019

Reading is a fundamental skill that students must have to navigate their school experience and their later lives. Our public schools should be able to teach students
to read. Yet, this may not be the reality for students with reading disabilities.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) is concerned that Ontario’s public education system may be failing to meet the needs of students with reading disabilities (dyslexia and other learning disabilities that affect reading). The OHRC is conducting a public inquiry to find out if these students have meaningful access to education as required by the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also recognizes the right to an inclusive education system directed to the full development of human potential and sense of dignity and self-worth.

A reading disability, formally known as a specific learning disorder with impairment in reading, affects a person’s language-based processing skills. Depending on the person,
it can be more or less severe and can affect reading fluency, decoding, reading comprehension, recall, writing, spelling, and sometimes speech. Dyslexia is the most common reading disability. It involves difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition, and poor spelling and decoding abilities.

Reading disabilities can exist along with other related disabilities and affect approximately 10% of the population. Reading disabilities are the most prevalent disability among students with special education needs. There are students with reading disabilities in every classroom.

Dyslexia and other reading disabilities are due to brain differences and are not related to a person’s intelligence. There is no cure, but with scientific evidence-based and systematic instruction in reading, early identification, effective interventions and accommodations, reading disabilities can be resolved or greatly diminished. Failing to do so has serious academic and life-long consequences for students and their families. Students can lose their sense of dignity and self-worth, develop depression and anxiety, and leave school. They may even be more likely to become involved in the criminal justice system, become homeless, or die by suicide. Parents may struggle to get assessments, interventions and accommodations for their children, and in many cases may be forced to pay for services privately, assuming they can.

The OHRC’s work on disability and education

The OHRC is the provincial statutory agency responsible for advancing human rights and preventing systemic discrimination in Ontario. The OHRC has broad powers under the Code to:

• Initiate inquiries in the public interest
• Monitor and report on human rights issues
• Engage in litigation, including by filing applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and intervening in other legal proceedings.

The OHRC’s 2017–2022 Strategic Plan identifies addressing systemic discrimination
in our education system as one of its four strategic priorities. The OHRC recognizes
the vital importance of education to an individual’s personal, social and economic development, and ability to contribute to the well-being of the community and province.

The OHRC is working to remove systemic barriers that students with disabilities face in accessing educational services, and to increase human rights accountability in Ontario’s public education system.

For over two decades, the OHRC has used its mandate to address human rights issues affecting students with disabilities, as well as students with other intersecting Code-protected identities such as race, ancestry and sex (see “OHRC initiatives related to education and disability”). Most recently, in 2018, the OHRC released a Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities along with Recommendations to improve educational outcomes for students with disabilities. 

Responsibility for public education in Ontario

Ontario’s Education Act states: “A strong public education system is the foundation of a prosperous, caring and civil society,” and that the “purpose of education is to provide students with the opportunity to realize their potential and develop into highly skilled, knowledgeable, caring citizens who contribute to their society.”

The Education Act goes on to state: “All partners in the education sector, including the Minister, the Ministry and the boards, have a role to play in enhancing student achievement and well-being, closing gaps in student achievement and maintaining confidence in the province’s publicly funded education systems.”

Under the Education Act, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has overall responsibility for developing legislation, regulations and policies for special education. The province’s 72 publicly funded school boards are responsible for delivering special education programs and services in accordance with MOE requirements. The MOE is also responsible for funding, setting curriculum, setting requirements for diplomas and certificates, and issuing policy directives and guidelines for school boards.

School boards are responsible for most aspects of delivering education to pupils and for providing education programs that meet the needs of the school community, including needs for special education.

Principals are responsible for organizing and managing individual schools, including any budget the school board assigns to the school. Principals are also responsible for the quality of instruction at their school and for student discipline.

Teachers are responsible for preparing lesson plans and teaching classes. They are responsible for supporting their students and evaluating their progress.

The OHRC’s inquiry powers

The OHRC is carrying out this public interest inquiry pursuant to its powers under section 31 of the Code. These powers include, but are not limited, to:

• The power to request the production of documents, things or information
• The power to question a person on matters that may be relevant to the inquiry; subject only to the person’s right to counsel
• The power to enter any premises where there may be relevant documents, things or information
• The ability to use expert assistance to carry out the inquiry.

The Code places a legal obligation on persons to comply with the OHRC’s inquiry requests. The information obtained on an inquiry under section 31 may be received into evidence in a proceeding before the HRTO.

Scope of the inquiry

The OHRC will inquire into potential human rights issues affecting students with reading disabilities in Ontario’s public schools, including:

1. Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Whether Universal Design for Learning, an approach to education that meets the diverse needs of every student, is being applied within Ontario’s reading curriculum and in classroom teaching methods
2. Mandatory early screening: Whether all students are being screened for reading difficulties in kindergarten (or in Grade 1, where a child does not attend public school for kindergarten) using scientific evidence-based early screening tools
3. Evidence-based reading intervention programs: Whether students who have been identified as having reading difficulties through mandatory early screening or psycho-educational assessment have access to timely, scientific evidence-based reading intervention programs
4. Accommodation: Whether students who have been identified as having reading difficulties through mandatory early screening or psycho-educational assessment have access to timely and effective accommodation and assistive technology.
5. Psycho-educational assessments: The role of psycho-educational assessments and whether students have access to timely and appropriate psycho-educational assessments where needed (in addition to mandatory early screening for reading difficulties)

The OHRC will consider perspectives on definitions of learning disabilities and dyslexia, including whether these terms are appropriately used and understood.

The OHRC will also examine the unique challenges for students with reading disabilities who face other barriers such as living in poverty or being members of intersecting Code-protected groups [e.g. newcomer students, English-language learners (students who are learning English at the same time as they are learning the curriculum and developing a full range of literacy skills), racialized students, and students with Indigenous ancestry].

The OHRC has selected eight public school boards from across the province to assess their compliance with their obligation to provide equal treatment to students with reading disabilities. This representative sample will allow the OHRC to assess whether systemic issues exist across Ontario’s English public elementary and secondary schools.*

The OHRC will request documents, data and information from the following eight
school boards:

1. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board
2. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board
3. Lakehead District School Board
4. London District Catholic School Board
5. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
6. Peel District School Board
7. Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board
8. Thames Valley District School Board.

To select this representative sample of school boards from across Ontario, working with an expert, the OHRC considered a combination of the following: lived experience accounts; population density; different geographic regions; demographic information; data from the Education Quality and Accountability Office including reading test results; boards’ Special Education Plans; the proportion of students from different Code-protected identities; and public reports.

The inquiry will also recognize systemic and structural issues that may be contributing to human rights issues, including in the areas of teacher training; funding; oversight; monitoring and accountability, including appropriate assessment of student progress; data collection; and curriculum design. In addition to school boards, the OHRC may review the roles of various partners in the education sector, including but not limited to the MOE, faculties of education at Ontario universities, and the Ontario College of Teachers.

The OHRC may examine and report on any other issues relevant to meeting the needs of students with reading disabilities in the delivery of public education in Ontario.

Inquiry process

To carry out the inquiry, the OHRC will:

1. Seek production of documents, data and information
2. Conduct research
3. Retain expert(s)
4. Consult with key stakeholders
5. Receive information from affected individuals, groups, experts, organizations, and other stakeholders through a variety of means.

The OHRC will report publicly on the inquiry process and its findings and will make recommendations based on its findings.

Before making its report public, the OHRC will provide an opportunity for the selected school boards, the MOE, and other education sector partners affected by the inquiry’s recommendations to respond.

The OHRC may take further steps available to it under the Code to address any issues identified in the inquiry process.

Any revisions to these Terms of Reference will be posted publicly.

Privacy

The OHRC recognizes the potential vulnerability of affected individuals and the sensitivity of information it will receive during the inquiry.

The OHRC will take all reasonable steps to conduct any surveys and interviews in a way that protects the security of the person and respects their confidentiality. The OHRC will not disclose personal information of affected individuals without informed consent.

The OHRC will take all reasonable steps to ensure that personal information that it obtains is treated confidentially and in accordance with statutory safeguards including the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The OHRC will be governed by its Protection of Personal Information and Privacy Safeguards Policy, and will take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized access, use or disclosure of personal information as directed by FIPPA.

The OHRC will destroy any personal information as soon as reasonably possible after it is no longer required.

OHRC initiatives related to disability and education

1999 – 2019

2019

Letter to Minister of Education re: Policy/Program Memorandum (PPM) – school board policies on service animals

Letter

The OHRC responded to the Ministry of Education’s consultation on its draft PPM for school board policies on service animals in schools. The OHRC recommended revisions such as recognizing that the duty to accommodate disability also includes individual needs not related to learning needs.

2018

OHRC Submission regarding the government consultation on the education system in Ontario

Submission

The OHRC encouraged the government to apply a human rights lens to all aspects of the education system, including addressing barriers to equality and discrimination in education against students with disabilities.

Submission to inform the Third Review of the Accessibility Act for Ontarians with Disabilities

Submission

The OHRC provided recommendations including that the government continue to develop new accessibility standards for education.

Submission to inform Canada’s response to recommendations made during the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (3^rd cycle)

Submission

The OHRC proposed that Canada prioritize certain recommendations, notably those related to accessible education for students with disabilities, and provided suggestions on how Canada could implement these recommendations.

Letter to Ministers re: accessible education for students with disabilities

Letter

The OHRC shared its Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities and Recommendations on improving outcomes for students with disabilities with the Ministers of Education; Training, Colleges and Universities; and Seniors and Accessibility, and encouraged the government to continue to develop new accessibility standards for education pursuant to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Recommendations: Improving education outcomes for students with disabilities

Recommendations

The OHRC set out 29 actions that the Ministry of Education, school boards, private educational providers, and post-secondary institutions should take to make the education system inclusive, function effectively, and allow students with disabilities to thrive.

Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities

Policy

The OHRC released a policy that provides students and families with up-to-date information about their human rights and responsibilities, and offers practical guidance to education providers to meet their legal duty to accommodate.

Letter re: University-mandated leave of absence policy raises human rights concerns

Letter

The OHRC expressed concerns that the University of Toronto’s proposed policy fell short of meeting the duty to accommodate students with mental health disabilities. The OHRC recommended that the policy not be approved in its current form.

2017

Letter re: Implementing recommendations on First Nations special education

Letter

The OHRC wrote to the Minister of Education, asking that they implement the recommendations in the May 2017 Ontario First Nations Special Education Review Report that relate to concerns with Ontario’s role in First Nations special education.

Letter re: Development of a new accessibility standard for education

Letter

The OHRC wrote to the Minister of Education, Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development, and the Minister Responsible for Accessibility, welcoming the government’s commitment to develop a new accessibility standard for education in Ontario. The OHRC emphasized the importance of having students with disabilities involved in developing the standard and offered assistance.

With Learning in Mind

Inquiry report

The OHRC wrote to public colleges and universities in Ontario asking them to implement measures to reduce systemic barriers to post-secondary education for students with mental health disabilities. The report describes the systemic barriers the OHRC identified, the modifications to post-secondary institutions’ policies and procedures requested by the OHRC, and the institutions’ self-reported progress in implementing the requested changes.

Policy statement on medical documentation

Policy statement

The OHRC released a policy statement that provides an overview of the role of medical professionals in the accommodation process, and the type and scope of medical information needed.

Ontario Human Rights Commission Strategic Plan 2017-2022

Strategic Plan

The OHRC identified education as a priority in its Strategic Plan, with a special focus on addressing systemic discrimination in the education system.

2016

Letter to the Ministry of Education regarding the provincial and demonstration schools consultation

Letter

The OHRC offered assistance to the Ministry of Education during its consultation involving certain provincial and demonstration schools for students with disabilities.

Follow-up letter to the president of each public college and university in Ontario

Letter

The OHRC wrote a follow-up letter on revisions to medical documentation guidelines and accommodation, continuing to request responses from each individual institution.

Letter to the president of each public college and university in Ontario

Letter

The OHRC asked all public colleges and universities in Ontario to revise medical documentation guidelines and accommodation requirements for post-secondary students with mental health disabilities, to remove potential barriers.

Letter re: Diagnosis requirements for OSAP and federal grants

Letter

The OHRC wrote to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities to ask the Ministry to stop requiring students to disclose their specific mental health disability diagnosis to establish eligibility for the Ontario Student Assistance Program and Bursary for Students with Disabilities and other grants.

Dhanota v York University

Summary of settlement

The OHRC intervened and reached a settlement in a case about the type of medical documentation that needs to be provided to support a request for accommodation for a mental health disability, and worked with the university and the student who filed the claim to develop new documentation guidelines to access academic accommodations.

2015

Tang v McMaster University, 2015 HRTO 551

HRTO reconsideration decision

The OHRC intervened to make submissions about the discrimination analysis in a case that alleged the university had failed to provide appropriate accommodations and did not inquire about the student’s disability-related needs (Post-Concussive Syndrome and Mild Traumatic Acquired Brain Injury).

2014

OHRC submission re: Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2013-2014 Legislative Review

Submission

The OHRC made recommendations to prevent and eliminate discriminatory practices, including barriers faced by persons with disabilities. In particular, the OHRC recommended that the government begin seeking public input on other priority areas for new regulated standards under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, such as accessibility standards for the education system.

2013

Teaching human rights in Ontario: A guide for Ontario schools

Guide

The OHRC published its third edition of this guide, updated to reflect the many changes that happened in human rights over the past decade, including on discrimination on the ground of disability and the OHRC’s Guidelines on Accessible Education.

Student v Simcoe County District School Board

Settlement

The OHRC assisted the parties, a student with autism and the board, in reaching a settlement by consulting on public interest remedies, specifically preparing and delivering training.

2012

DS v London District Catholic School Board, 2012 HRTO 786

HRTO decision

The OHRC referred and had carriage over two complaints that alleged that the board failed to accommodate two students with ADHD and learning disabilities.

Moore v BC (Ministry of Education), 2012 SCC 61

Supreme Court of Canada decision

The OHRC intervened in Moore, a landmark Supreme Court of Canada case that dealt with the denial of meaningful access to education for a student with dyslexia. The Supreme Court agreed with the OHRC’s position and upheld the original decision that discrimination had occurred.

2011

LC v Toronto District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1336

HRTO decision

The OHRC referred and had carriage over a case that alleged the Board failed to accommodate the needs of a student with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

2010

OHRC Submission re: the Ministry of Community and Social Services Proposed Integrated Accessibility Regulation under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005

Submission

The OHRC raised several concerns about the proposed Integrated Accessibility Regulation, notably on exemptions for private educational institutions and materials that educational institutions offer that should be “conversion ready.”

Sigrist and Carson v London District Catholic School Board, 2010 HRTO 1062

HRTO interim decision

The OHRC referred and had carriage over a case about whether the Special Education Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over the identification, placement and accommodation of students with special needs.

CM v York Region District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1494

HRTO decision

The OHRC intervened to argue whether the definition of “age” in the Code is contrary to the Charter with respect to the particular proceeding.

Letter to the Editor, Toronto Star re: Canada’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Letter

The OHRC acknowledged Canada’s ratification of the Convention as an important step forward.

2009

Letter re: Ratification of UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Letter

The OHRC encouraged the Government of Canada to ratify, implement and give effect to the Convention, highlighting the Convention’s obligations on identifying and eliminating obstacles and barriers to accessibility in schools, and the Government of Ontario’s initiative to change safe schools legislation and policies to address adverse treatment and punishment of students with behaviour-related disabilities.

2008

Brown v Trebas Institute Ontario Inc, 2008 HRTO 10

HRTO decision

The OHRC successfully argued that the private college discriminated against the student, who is blind, by failing to take appropriate steps to implement the required accommodation and by applying an enrolment policy that conflicted with the duty to accommodate. The HRTO ordered all of the public interest remedies the OHRC requested, such as requiring the college to designate a position in its administrative structure with primary responsibilities for meeting the accommodation needs of students with disabilities.

Sigrist and Carson v London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14

HRTO interim decision

The OHRC successfully added the Ministry of Education as a respondent. The OHRC argued that the Ministry could potentially be liable for its alleged failure to take more timely action to assist the student’s  parents in resolving their concerns about the board’s alleged failure to appropriately accommodate the student’s needs.

Davidson v Lambton Kent District School Board, 2008 HRTO 294

HRTO interim decision

The OHRC successfully added the Ministry of Education as a respondent. The OHRC argued that the Ministry has a role in how school boards exercise their responsibilities, even relating to particular students, and could potentially be liable for discrimination where its definition of exceptionalities (here, ADHD) prevented or delayed a student from receiving required accommodations.

Student v Toronto Catholic District School Board

Settlement

The OHRC successfully settled a case involving a student with Anxiety Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The settlement required the board to conduct individual assessments for students with special needs, and implement measures to improve communication between students and staff on accommodations.

Student v Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board et al

Settlement

The OHRC successfully settled a case involving a student of Arab descent with ADHD, requiring the board to reintroduce an anti-racism policy and deliver training.

2007

Equal access to education for students with disabilities during strikes

Fact sheet

The OHRC highlighted the human rights principles that apply to educating students with disabilities during strikes, walkouts, work stoppages or other job actions involving educational assistants. This fact sheet serves as a resource for government, unions, school boards and others to act proactively to ensure equal access to education for students with disabilities during strikes or other work stoppages.

OHRC v Ontario (Ministry of Education)

Terms of settlement

The OHRC successfully settled its own complaint against the Ministry of Education relating to applying safe schools provisions under the Education Act and related school discipline policies that had a disproportionate effect on students with disabilities and racialized students. The settlement resulted in amendments to the Act that require principals and school boards to consider mitigating factors before suspending or expelling students. The Ministry also mandated the creation of alternative education programs for suspensions of longer than five days, and introduced new Policy and Program Memoranda on progressive discipline.

2006

Pukas v Halton District School Board

Summary of settlement

The OHRC successfully mediated a settlement between the complainant and the board requiring the board to assign educational assistant supports, whether in self-contained supports or otherwise, to the point of undue hardship.

Arzem v Ontario, 2006 HRTO 17

HRTO interim decision

The OHRC referred 245 cases of children with Pervasive Development Disorders (which includes Autism Spectrum Disorder) who were ineligible for Applied Behaviour Analysis and Intensive Behavioural services because of the program’s age restrictions. The OHRC successfully argued that denying Code protections for children under age 18 violated the equality provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

2005

OHRC v Toronto District School Board

Terms of settlement

The OHRC successfully settled its own complaint against the board relating to the disproportionate impact of the safe school provisions of Ontario’s Education Act and related board policies on students with disabilities and racialized students. The board committed to collecting data and considering mitigating factors in school discipline policies.

OHRC v Dufferin-Peel Catholic School Board

Public interest remedies

The OHRC mediated a settlement requiring the board to take race and disability into account as mitigating factors in its school discipline policies.

OHRC v Toronto District School Board

The OHRC filed a Commission-initiated complaint against the board, alleging that the application of school discipline legislation and policies was having a discriminatory impact on racialized students and students with disabilities.

OHRC v Ontario (Ministry of Education)

The OHRC filed a Commission-initiated complaint against the Ministry, alleging that the application of school discipline legislation and policies was having a discriminatory impact on racialized students and students with disabilities. OHRC concerns were based on submissions received during its racial profiling inquiry, its consultation on disability issues in Ontario’s education system, and an external report prepared for the OHRC that supported these concerns with evidence from Nova Scotia, the United States and Britain.

2004

Submission to the Toronto District School Board Safe and Compassionate Schools Task Force 

Submission

The OHRC made a submission to the Task Force raising concerns that applying school disciplinary legislation, regulations and policies may be having a discriminatory effect on students from racialized communities and students with disabilities. The submission included several recommendations for the Ministry of Education and school boards across the province, including collecting data on suspensions and expulsions to monitor and safeguard against discriminatory application of safe school legislation.

Letter to Ministers re: Follow-up to OHRC Consultation Report

Letter

The OHRC wrote to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities to inquire into their progress on the recommendations in the OHRC’s 2003 consultation report, The Opportunity to Succeed: Achieving Barrier-free Education for Students with Disabilities.

Guidelines on accessible education

Guidelines

The OHRC provided guidance to help education providers and students with disabilities fulfill their duties and rights under the Code. The Guidelines provide clarification on: the principles of accommodation; creating a welcoming environment for all students; the accommodation process; the right to confidentiality and the disclosure of information; appropriate accommodation; accommodation planning; the undue hardship standard; and roles and responsibilities of the people involved in the accommodation process.

Planning for the accommodation needs of students with disabilities

Fact sheet

The OHRC highlighted that as part of the duty to accommodate, education providers are responsible for taking steps to plan for accommodating students with disabilities, emphasizing the importance of institutional accessibility plans, individual accommodation plans, transitioning, and collecting data for effective planning.

2003

The Ontario Safe Schools Act: School Discipline and Discrimination

Report

The OHRC’s external report found that in the Greater Toronto Area and other parts of Ontario, there is a strong perception, which is supported by some independent evidence, that Ontario’s Safe Schools Act and Regulations and the school board policies on discipline, were having a disproportionate impact on racialized students, particularly Black students, and students with disabilities.

The Opportunity to Succeed: Achieving barrier-free education for students with disabilities

Consultation report

The OHRC reported on what it heard in its education consultation, and recommended actions for schools, school boards, post-secondary institutions, government, and other responsible parties to promote compliance with human rights law and policy. This report also set out the OHRC’s own commitments.

Main barriers to education for students with disabilities

Fact sheet

The OHRC identified inadequate funding, physical inaccessibility, the accommodation process, the lack of individualization, ineffective dispute resolution mechanisms, and negative attitudes and stereotypes as some of the main barriers to education service for students with disabilities.

Roles and responsibilities in the accommodation of students with disabilities

Fact sheet

The OHRC spotlighted the roles and responsibilities of students with disabilities (or their parent or guardian), education providers, unions, professional associations, and third-party education service providers in accommodating students with disabilities, including the accommodation process and providing education services.

Letter to Ministers re: Access to preschool programs for deaf/hard of hearing children

Letter

The OHRC wrote to the Minister of Children’s Services and the Minister of Education about access to preschool programs for deaf/hard of hearing children.

2002

Education and disability: Human rights issues in Ontario’s education system

Consultation paper

The OHRC identified human right issues in education and invited feedback from interested parties, through written submissions and participation in public hearings, on the issues identified in the consultation paper and on other human rights issues in education.

Commission launches public consultations on disability issues in Ontario’s education system

News release

The OHRC announced that it will hold public consultations on human rights issues affecting persons with disabilities in Ontario’s education system. It held public consultation sessions in Hamilton, North Bay, Ottawa and Toronto. This initiative stemmed from the OHRC’s public consultations on disability and the duty to accommodate in 1999, as it developed its Policy and guidelines on disability and the duty to accommodate, where several submissions raised important issues relating to disability and education in addition to complaints of systemic discrimination.

2001

Policy and guidelines on disability and the duty to accommodate

Policy

This policy replaced the previous set of guidelines established in 1989, and reflected progressive developments in understandings of disability and the duty to accommodate.

Teaching human rights in Ontario: An educational package for Ontario schools

Guide

The OHRC published a new edition of the Guide, first introduced in 1995, and included information on the OHRC’s Policy and guidelines on disability and the duty to accommodate.

2000

Accommodating students with disabilities: roles and responsibilities

Fact sheet

The OHRC highlighted that the accommodation process is a shared responsibility among government, school boards, elementary and secondary school educators, post-secondary institutions, and students with disabilities (or their parent or guardian). Each party has a specific role and a duty to co-operatively engage in the process, share information, and canvass potential accommodation solutions.

Accommodating students with disabilities: principles

Fact sheet

The OHRC identified three accommodation principles for education providers to prevent and remove barriers that impede students with disabilities from fully taking part in the education environment, promote inclusive design, and accommodate remaining needs: respect for dignity, individualized accommodation, and inclusion and full participation.

1999 – 2000

Update to Discover Together

Teacher’s manual

The OHRC worked on developing a teaching resource on “human rights and dsabilities” as part of the updated disability awareness resource teacher’s manual, Discover Together. The manual is designed to help teachers introduce non-disabled students to a variety of disability issues, and to increase their awareness of the abilities of people with disabilities. The package was re-released by the Equity Department of the Toronto District School Board and distributed to all elementary schools in the Toronto District School Board.

Student v Windsor Board of Education and Greater Essex County District School Board

Settlement

The OHRC referred a case between the complainant and the school boards resulting in a settlement requiring the respondents to create an activity fee surcharge for all Adult Continuing Education students, to develop a fund for the sole purpose of paying the cost of services for students with special needs.

1999

Public consultations on disability and the duty to accommodate

The OHRC consulted extensively with approximately 150 stakeholders, including educational institutions, to evaluate the need for revisions to the 1989 Guidelines for assessing accommodation requirements for persons with disabilities and to seek views on proposed revisions.

Meloche by his Litigation Guardian Theresa Kales v Greater Essex County District School Board

Settlement

The OHRC referred a case between the complainant and the board. The resulting settlement required the board to establish a fund to support deaf and hearing-impaired students with the costs associated with therapeutic intervention, as well as hire a teacher with the ability to provide American Sign Language instruction.

Right to Read: Inquiry into Reading Disabilities

Backgrounder

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is conducting a public inquiry into human rights issues affecting students with reading disabilities in Ontario’s public education system.

What are reading disabilities?

A reading disability, formally known as a specific learning disorder with impairment in reading,[1] affects a person’s language-based processing skills. Depending on the person, it can be more or less severe and can affect reading fluency, decoding, reading comprehension, recall, writing, spelling, and sometimes speech.

Dyslexia is the most common reading disability. It involves difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition, and poor spelling and decoding abilities.

People who have a reading disability may experience problems with:

• Learning letters and their sounds
• Organizing written and spoken language
• Reading quickly enough to understand
• Keeping up with and understanding longer reading assignments
• Spelling.

What are the early signs of reading disabilities?

Some signs of a reading disability in young children may include:

• Difficulty remembering simple sequences such as naming the days of the week, or reciting the alphabet
• Difficulty rhyming words such as hat and cat
• Trouble recognizing words that begin with the same sound (for example, bird, baby and big, which all start with b)
• Difficulty retrieving words (often using words like “stuff” and “that thing” instead of specific words to name objects)
• Trouble remembering names of places and people
• Difficulty remembering spoken directions.[2]

What are some of the effects of failing to respond to reading disabilities?

Reading is a foundational skill. Without the proper interventions and accommodations, people with reading disabilities may not learn to read and may have difficulty with other subjects in school (for example, word problems in math). Along with academic problems, this can lead to social and emotional effects, including increased stress and anxiety, problems with self-image and depression.

In adulthood, low literacy can lead to under-employment and higher rates of homelessness, incarceration and suicide.

Some reading disabilities, such as dyslexia, run in families. Approximately 40% of siblings, children or parents of an affected person will have dyslexia.[3] Failing to address dyslexia can lead to intergenerational cycles of illiteracy.

What should be done?

When an effective and systematic approach is used, people with reading disabilities respond very well and the effects of the disability can be greatly reduced.[4] We are looking at these areas:

1. Universal Design for Learning: First, all teachers should use scientific evidence-based instruction in the basic skills required for reading (e.g. phonics) when teaching all students to read. This is also known as Universal Design for Learning (UDL).
2. Mandatory early screening: It is very important to identify reading disabilities early, because interventions are most effective in the earliest years of elementary school. Educators should screen every child in kindergarten (and not later than Grade 1) using scientific evidence-based early screening tools to identify students at risk.
3. Reading interventions: Students identified as at risk should have access to timely, scientific evidence-based reading intervention programs.
4. Accommodation: Students with reading disabilities should have ongoing support, including through timely and effective accommodation and assistive technology.
5. Psycho-educational assessments: Where all of the other steps have happened but concerns remain, students should have access to timely and appropriate psycho-educational assessments.

Some key statistics related to reading disabilities

• Reading disabilities affect approximately 10% of the population[5]
• In 2013 – 14, school boards reported that 41.4% (75,543) of exceptional students identified by an Identification, Placement, Review Committee (IPRC) had a learning disability. This is the largest exceptionality group of the 12 exceptionalities specifically recognized by the Ministry of Education (MOE). The MOE states that it is a reasonable hypothesis that a significant portion of students receiving special education programs and services, but not identified by an IPRC, have learning disabilities (144,987 or 7.1% of total enrollment)[6]
• Approximately 80% of people with learning disabilities have dyslexia[7]
• 2018 – 2019 Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) results indicate that 26% of Ontario’s Grade 3 students and 53% of Grade 3 students with special education needs did not meet the Provincial Standard (Level 3 or 4) for reading[8]
• Only 50% of students with special education needs passed the Grade 10 Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test, which measures whether students are meeting the minimum standard for literacy across all subjects up to the end of Grade 9. Successfully completing the literacy test is one of the requirements to earn an Ontario Secondary School Diploma. EQAO states that “the persistent discrepancy in achievement between students with special education needs and those without requires attention”[9]
• Without appropriate instruction, more than 74% of children entering Grade 1 who are at risk for reading failure will continue to have reading problems into adulthood[10]
• An estimated 40% of people with learning disabilities struggle with anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem[11]
• In one study, 52% of homeless youth in Toronto had a reading disability[12]
• 65% of people in Canadian correctional facilities have lower than elementary-level literacy skills[13]
• Canadians with a learning disability were 46% more likely to have attempted suicide.[14]

Voices from community partners

The Learning Disabilities Associations (LDAs) across Canada started from the Toronto office in 1963 and today is overseen coast-to-coast by the LDA of Canada. The LDAC led the efforts involving the Geoffrey Moore case where the Supreme Court of Canada examined the rights to education and considered the “ramp” required for those with Learning Disabilities to have the access they deserve. Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario (LDAO) is committed to students with Learning Disabilities being given the best possible opportunities to succeed in Ontario schools and therefore looks forward to the findings and recommendations of the OHRC inquiry.

• Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario

Decoding Dyslexia Ontario is incredibly grateful for the commitment of the OHRC to this human rights issue in our public education system. Generations of families and their children with dyslexia will be well-served by your work in this area. Our province will be reminded that equitable access to education is not a luxury, it is a right and that this right, afforded to all, is the cornerstone for the future development of Ontario and Canada as a whole.

• Decoding Dyslexia Ontario

Dyslexia Canada fully supports the Commission's inquiry into the human rights issues that affect students with dyslexia. We strongly believe that all Canadian children have a right to a fair and equitable education which those with dyslexia are currently being denied. As someone with dyslexia, this is a giant step forward in ensuring that our rights are not only recognized but also realized and enforced.

• Keith Gray, Founder and Chair of Dyslexia Canada

The International Dyslexia Association – Ontario Branch (IDA Ontario) is pleased to offer our full support for the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner’s “Right to Read” inquiry into systemic and structural human rights issues affecting children with dyslexia in Ontario’s public schools. We strongly believe individuals with dyslexia have the right to achieve their full potential, which requires equitable access to education and removal of social and cultural barriers to literacy. This inquiry is the first step toward ensuring that all students with dyslexia are offered timely screening, assessment and intervention using evidence-based instruction methods.

• International Dyslexia Association – Ontario Branch

The promise of inclusive education continues to be elusive for many students with disabilities. Learning to read is fundamental for all students and yet the supports, appropriate accommodations, and timely identification are often lacking. We welcome
this announcement by the Ontario Human Rights Commission; this much-needed inquiry into the experiences of our students and the practices of public school boards will be
an important step to removing barriers and creating more responsive and inclusive education services.

• Robert Lattanzio, Executive Director, ARCH Disability Law Centre

Voices from the community

[The] public school refused to acknowledge or accept the dyslexia diagnosis until she was seven. … Without timely remediation, my daughter is barely able to read and write in English as she enters Grade 3. … In the meantime, her mental health is strained because she is keenly aware of her learning differences and extremely frustrated by the fact that she struggles to read and write. … Last year she asked Santa Claus for “the power to read” – she’s still wondering if she’ll ever get her wish.

• Parent of 8-year-old

In high school we had access to supports such as a resource room and guidance counsellors. However, because I was compliant, because I took academic subjects, because I didn’t complain, because I refused to show either my emotional and educational struggles at school (specifically before classmates), I never received extra help. …. No one will ever know the amount of at-home learning and work that was required.

• Student, now age 20

My child … was not tested for his disability with a psycho-educational assessment until Grade 7 at the age of 13. This is way too late – and he is experiencing social and emotional heartaches and stress because of this late diagnosis. … He is reading at a Grade 2 level in Grade 8. … The sadness and failure I feel as a parent for my son is painful.

• Parent of 14-year-old

Children should not have to wait years to access services. … Trying to get my son's needs met in the public school system has been one of the most difficult and challenging tasks I have faced as a parent.

• Parent of 10-year-old

We as parents don’t expect the world from our schools. But we did expect she – a smart, curious, creative girl – would get the same opportunity to learn as her peers. This has been denied [to] her. And she is not alone. In every class, she had at least one, maybe two or three classmates with dyslexia or another learning disability. They all struggled. Sadly, our story is not unique.

• Parent of 12-year-old

Because they have not given her the tools be literate, I’ve had to step in and tutor her at home, as I have now done with my youngest daughter as well, since they are content on letting her fail first. If I was confident that my daughters wouldn’t see it as being a punishment for being dyslexic, I would homeschool them.

• Parent of 9-year-old

At his Grade 8 IPRC [Identification, Placement, and Review Committee] the plan was to do nothing and send him on to high school at a Grade 4 reading level. They were going to implement nothing until I went to a lawyer. … After a summer of back and forth on [the] phone with [the] lawyer, the Empower program was put in place for the second semester [of] high school. But since then, nothing again.

• Parent of 15-year-old

We chose to pay to have the assessment done as the waitlist is ridiculous. We were told the waitlist was two to three years. … There just isn't enough support for kids with LD. Teachers are busy with the large classrooms and don't have the time to help the kids that need one-on-one time. There are not enough alternative teachers to help. Once a week isn't enough.

• Parent of 11-year-old

OHRC launches Right to Read public inquiry

TORONTO – Today, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) launched Right to Read, a public inquiry into human rights issues that affect students with reading disabilities in Ontario’s public education system.

There are children in classrooms across Ontario who fail to learn to read. According to recent Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) results, more than one-quarter of Grade 3 students, and 53% of Grade 3 students with special education needs, did not meet the provincial standard for reading.

Students who can’t read will struggle in all aspects of school, and are more vulnerable to mental health disabilities, behavioural issues, bullying and dropping out. Life-long consequences can include under-employment, homelessness, involvement with the criminal justice system, and even suicide.

Students with reading disabilities have the right to learn to read. Yet, the OHRC is concerned that students with reading disabilities are not getting the supports they need. This is all the more troubling because reading disabilities can be remediated with early intervention and support.

As part of its inquiry, the OHRC will hear from parents, students and educators across the province. It will also assess whether school boards use scientific evidence-based approaches to meet students’ right to read. The OHRC will assess school boards against five benchmarks that are part of an effective systematic approach to teaching all students to read:

• Universal design for learning (UDL)
• Mandatory early screening
• Reading intervention programs
• Effective accommodation
• Psycho-educational assessments (if required).

The OHRC selected the following eight school boards to provide a representative sample of boards across Ontario:

• Hamilton Wentworth District School Board
• Keewatin-Patricia District School Board
• Lakehead District School Board
• London District Catholic School Board
• Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
• Peel District School Board
• Simcoe-Muskoka Catholic District School Board
• Thames Valley District School Board.

…/2

-2-

The OHRC may also request information or assistance from the Ministry of Education, the Ontario College of Teachers, as well as faculties of education. It has retained Dr. Linda Siegel to assist with the inquiry. Dr. Siegel is Professor Emeritus with the University of British Columbia’s Faculty of Education and an international authority in the field of reading disabilities.

“Reading is the foundation for success in school, work and life,” said OHRC Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane. “Learning to read is not a privilege, it is a human right. This inquiry will assess whether school boards use evidence-based approaches to meet their human rights obligations.”

The OHRC will release a formal report on findings and recommendations in 2020.

The OHRC wants to hear directly from parents, students, educators and others, and invites them to email legal@ohrc.on.ca, or call 416-314-4547 or 1-800-387-9080.

Resources

Right to Read Inquiry terms of reference

Backgrounder

Voices from the community

Voices from community partners

Right to Read flyer

OHRC initiatives related to disability and education

Inquiry privacy policy

-30-

Media contact:

Yves Massicotte
Communications & Issues Management
Ontario Human Rights Commission/Commission ontarienne des droits de la personne
416-314-4491 Yves.massicotte@ohrc.on.ca

“The Ontario Human Rights Commission promotes and enforces human rights to create a culture of human rights accountability.”

www.ohrc.on.ca      www.facebook.com/the.ohrc      twitter.com/OntHumanRights

Maria Rizzo
Chair
Toronto Catholic District School Board
Catholic Education Centre
80 Sheppard Avenue East
North York, ON M2N 6E8

Dear Chair Rizzo:

The OHRC is aware that the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) is considering amending its Code of Conduct to specifically include gender identity, gender expression, family status and marital status as grounds upon which members of the TCDSB community cannot be treated unfairly. Our understanding is that this issue is being specifically considered by the Catholic Education and Living our Catholic Values Sub-committee on September 25, 2019.

Addressing gender identity, gender expression, family status and marital status in the Code of Conduct is necessary for the TCDSB to meet its obligations under the Education Act, the Ministry of Education’s Policy/Program Memorandum No. 128: The Provincial Code of Conduct and School Board Codes of Conduct, and Ontario’s Human Rights Code.

All schools in Ontario have a legal duty to ensure a school environment free from harassment and other forms of discrimination on the basis of the Human Rights Code. Gender identity, gender expression, marital status and family status are all prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Code, and their inclusion in the TCDSB’s Code of Conduct is essential to ensuring that all members of the school community are able to fully participate without discrimination.

Expressly referencing gender identity and gender expression in the TCDSB’s Code of Conduct is particularly important given the extreme vulnerability of transgender students. Research shows that transgender children and youth are extremely marginalized; have high rates of depression and suicide; and experience isolation, harassment, and bullying in school environments. Given this, it is important that school codes of conduct – which set out standards of behaviour for all members of the school community – clearly state that transgender people must be treated fairly and with respect.

Conversely, excluding particular protected grounds would send a harmful and troubling message, and would set a lower standard of treatment for particular members of the TCDSB community.

Accordingly, the OHRC calls on the TCDSB to amend its Code of Conduct to specifically include gender identity, gender expression, family status and marital status as grounds upon which members of the TCDSB community must refrain from treating others differently – bringing it in line with the Human Rights Code and the requirements mandated by the Ministry of Education noted above.

Following the September 25, 2019, meeting at which the amendment is being considered, we ask that you provide us with an update and a copy of any updated version of the TCDSB’s Code of Conduct being recommended to the Board.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and if there is any further information we can provide that would assist, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Renu Mandhane, B.A., J.D., LL.M.
Chief Commissioner

cc. Catholic Education and Living our Catholic Values Subcommittee, c/o Michael Caccamo, Superintendent