Talk:Ontario Human Rights Commission

Macleans
Is it really necessary to have 2/3 of this article devoted not only to a single complaint but one that has been dismissed and never reached the tribunal stage? Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Commission vs. Human Rights Tribunal
This article also needs to more strongly distinguish the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). The HRTO is the actual judicial body that adjudicates human rights complaints. The OHRC has no such power and in many respects is simply an "advocacy group". A good chunk of the OHRC commissioners don't even have legal backgrounds, one of them having his claim to fame being a "chef, active in the community" for the last 20ish years or so. Drouillm (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Unverified Statements
Can the comment below be removed? Someone also inserted it into the articles on the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act, but it was ultimately removed from the latter. It lacks verification and looks like it would fail the neutral point of view criteria, at least because of undue weight. Since the 1980s, much controversy has arisen through the actions of this body. Many decisions handed down by the Commission illustrate the prevailing political climate in Ontario, which prefers to err on the side of protecting the rights of foreign cultures, rather than preserving Canadian customs, culture and rights.

Dismissal of a Complaint
The previous section of the legislation is no longer in effect following the amendments in June 2008: In the Ontario Human Rights Code, the reasons for dismissal can be seen in s.34 which states:

34. (1)(a)where there is another legislative act that can more appropriately deal with the issues raised in the complaint; (b) where the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith; (c) where the complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission; and (d) where the complaint was filed more than six months from the last incident of discrimination, and it appears the delay was not incurred in good faith, and there is evidence of substantial prejudice to the parties because of the delay.

Should this section be removed completely now since it only references the Tribunal?

NPOV Tag
This entire article seems to have been written (or rewritten) with an inherent bias against the Commission. The article has little in the way of facts and information about the Commission itself, while focusing almost exclusively on a handful of cases that cast the OHRC in a negative light. It's also worth noting that all the cases cited have taken place since 2006, while the OHRC itself has been around since 1962; were there no notable or controversial cases before then?

Needs a complete rewrite, and preferably by someone who doesn't have an axe to grind (one way or the other). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntClubJoe (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this article needs a re-write. There are a bunch of facts at the beginning of the article. The article deals with the important topics that have arisen regarding the OHRC (The fact that a non-elected human rights commission has been limiting human rights is extremely important), I would like to see some information or facts on public opinion if that's even possible, such as an approval poll or actions taken by political representatives in response to the many controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.82.8 (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since no one has suggested changes to this article since February, I've removed the POV tag, as the discussion appears dormant, per the instructions on that template's page:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
 * If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)