The Options Paper from the Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario has been released. You can find the paper, entitled “Approaches for Reform”, here: http://www.socialassistancereview.ca/commission-publications.

A message from the Commissioners is here: http://www.socialassistancereview.ca/a-message-from-the-commissioners. You will also be interested to review “What We Heard”, which is the summary of discussions that took place last summer after the release of their first discussion paper. That paper can also be found here: http://www.socialassistancereview.ca/commission-publications.

ISAC’s initial take on the Options Paper is that there are significant changes being proposed for ODSP – some of which are not explicit – and not enough concentration on resolving the major problems that exist in OW.

Over the next several days we will be conducting further analysis, and intend to distribute more information as soon as possible to help people analyse and respond to the issues in the paper.  

Note that the deadline for responding to the Options Paper is March 16.

Share this:

Social Assistance Review – Preparing for the Options Paper

The Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario is expected to release an Options Paper in early February with options for reforming Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), followed by a very short period for public response and feedback. The options could have far-reaching implications for people on low incomes.

In this webinar series, Jennefer Laidley and Dana Milne of the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) will present on 3 different options expected in the paper and offer a variety of tools to help groups across Ontario organize consultations in their communities and make submissions.

Please note you do not need to attend all 3 webinars – but each focuses on a different option so if you are able to, the content will be different. Please register online for each webinar separately. Here are the dates in the series:

Tax Delivered Income – Thursday, January 26th from 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. REGISTER TODAY

Moving Benefits outside OW and ODSP – Wednesday February 1 from 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.  REGISTER TODAY

Merging OW and ODSP – Monday, February 6 – 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. REGISTER TODAY

Because space is limited, we are prioritizing registration for people who intend to participate in the Social Assistance Review by organizing consultations in their communities or making submissions on the Options Paper. Thus we encourage participants in the same organization/group to consider meeting together to share a phone line and computer. Registrations will be taken on a first come first served basis.

Each webinar is being recorded and archived so others will be able to access the information through the Your Legal Rights web site at www.yourlegalrights.on.ca and through the Income Security Advocacy Centre’s website on the Social Assistance Review at www.sareview.ca.

These webinars are offered by ISAC in partnership with the Ontario Council for Agencies Serving Immigrants, YWCA Toronto, Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change, Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, the ODSP Action Coalition, Campaign 2000, and the community legal clinic system’s Steering Committee on Social Assistance.

Share this:

On Monday, Prime Minister Harper’s Conservative MPs voted for the cruel Crime Bill. That night, the NDP, Liberal, Bloc and Green MPs stood together against the bill, and many of them were wearing “Safer, not meaner” buttons in solidarity with our campaign.

Now, the struggle for Canadian justice moves to the Senate. The Senate’s job is to provide a “sober second thought.” Senators are appointed for life, and free to make their own choices. They can review the evidence, change the bill, and force another vote.

Every day, opposition grows as Canadians learn more about the Crime Bill, but Prime Minister Harper is putting enormous pressure on Senators to rubber-stamp the bill quickly so it can pass before Christmas. There is only one thing that can balance the scales: a massive public outcry from Canadians like you, right now.

Click here to send an urgent message to the Senators that represent your province, asking them to rise above partisan politics, look at the evidence, and make Canada safer, not meaner:

http://www.leadnow.ca/keep-canada-safe

Together, you are taking on the strongest force in Canadian politics: a newly elected government with a majority of seats working to pass a core plank of its election platform on a hot-button issue.

And, thanks to your messages to your representatives, your letters to the editor, your local actions, and your phone calls, we have helped shift the national conversation decisively against this bill in a way that no one thought possible just a few months ago.

Catherine Latimer, the Executive Director of the amazing John Howard Society of Canada, just wrote about this shift:

“Organizations like the John Howard Society, which have been lampooned for simply advocating for effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime, sense a change in the winds. More and more people have been persuaded by the evidence and are speaking up for a more effective, fairer, and less mean approach to achieving our shared objective of reducing crime than is proposed in Bill C-10.” [1]

Don’t let anyone tell you that this is over.

On Tuesday, Newfoundland’s Justice Minister spoke out firmly against the Crime Bill, saying it has not been properly studied, and the actual costs will be “astronomical”. [2] On Wednesday, Grand Chief Derik Nepinak of Manitoba’s Assembly of Chiefs, called a national press conference to say that the bill’s mandatory sentences would continue the legacy of residential schools, and must be opposed. Nepinak said that “instead of investing in jails we need to invest in healing.” [3]

The Manitoba Chiefs are calling on our Senate to provide the sober second thought that our country so desperately needs. Let’s join them:

http://www.leadnow.ca/keep-canada-safe

This action is about checks and balances. Remember that every time you write, every time you speak out, you give people the courage to join you. You give people courage to speak truth to power. And we are so grateful to you, because to change the world, we must first change the conversation.

Click here to ask your province’s Senators to rise above partisan politics, look at the evidence, and make Canada safer, not meaner:

http://www.leadnow.ca/keep-canada-safe

Thank you for all you do.

With hope and respect,
Matthew, Jamie, Emma, Ryan, Jenn, Anna and Julia on behalf of the Leadnow.ca team

p.s. We love this quote: “Fighting bad policy is good for the soul.” – Alex Himmelfarb, former Clerk of the Privy Council and current member of Leadnow’s board, talking about the need to contact our Senators. We agree – and it’s even better when you know that tens of thousands of other Canadians are joining you.

Sources:

[1] “A bad day: what now?” by Alex Himmelfarb
http://afhimelfarb.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/a-bad-day-what-now/

[2] Ottawa’s omnibus crime bill criticized by Newfoundland justice minister
http://www.globalnews.ca/Pages/Story.aspx?id=6442535974

[3] Crime bill furthers legacy of residential schools: Nepinak
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/Crime-bill-furthers-legacy-of-residential-schools-Nepinak-135179528.html

Leadnow.ca is an independent community that brings Canadians together to hold government accountable, deepen our democracy and take action for the common good.

Support the Leadnow.ca community! You can donate online at:
http://www.leadnow.ca/en/donate

Our Senators are under massive pressure from Prime Minister Harper to rubber stamp the cruel Crime Bill fast, but their job is to give it the “sober second thought” we desperately need. They have the power to act, but they need to hear from you.

Send an urgent message to your province’s Senators, asking them to rise above partisan politics, look at the evidence, and make Canada safer, not meaner.

Share this:

Porter: Linda Chamberlain rose from rough beginnings to become a champion of the mentally ill

By Catherine Porter Columnist

Compared to Linda Chamberlain, I bet your life story is boring.

No offence.

I also bet your watery struggles are languid compared to the Class 5 rapids of her life.

A quick temperature test: Have you ever escaped from a mental institution, fleeing murder charges across the country with an up-and-coming police officer named Julian Fantino on your trail?

I first met Chamberlain two years ago. I watched her playing bongos for dancing patients inside the Centre for Mental Health and Addiction, on the very floor where she once lived. She was then a peer-support worker, but under the Dickensian welfare rules, she was earning less working part-time than sitting at home. So, sadly, she quit the job. Her case became known as the “Linda Chamberlain rule” by welfare reformers.

I visited Chamberlain again this week in the east-end apartment building she calls her lifesaver. She wanted to tell her story because a month ago she was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Stephen King will wish she called him up.

Chapter One: Chamberlain was born to a young, poor farming family in New Brunswick. When she was five, she discovered her father in the barn with a saw through his skull. It was Christmas day. Three years later, Chamberlain’s mom yanked her out of school to take care of her two younger sisters. She never learned to read or write.

Chapter Two: By 13, Chamberlain was living alone in a rooming house in Toronto. Her first job, she says, was at Bata, selling ladies shoes. The day her co-worker didn’t show up was her last. She couldn’t read labels to locate the orders or count money in the till.

She spun through a revolving door of jobs, most lasting a few weeks and paying little money, since she often relied on customers to count out their own change. Then, at 18, the voices started to hound her.

Chapter Three: Some of the voices were kind. Some were vicious. She called the police so often, they took her to the old Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia. “I couldn’t even pronounce it,” she says. “It sounded like a swear word to me.”

Six months later, she was given a bus ticket and prescription and released. “I’d lost everything. After a month of not paying, my landlady had thrown out all my stuff.”

Chapter Four: “I did get married though,” Chamberlain says. “At St. Paul’s Church. The white dress and everything.” But her knight wasn’t so shining. “He broke my nose. He locked me in the basement when he went to work. He played Russian roulette with my head,” says Chamberlain. She escaped one night, tiptoeing over his sleeping body and fleeing down the street in a kimono.

Chapter Five: She was selling magazines door-to-door when her friend spotted an ad for exotic dancers. Not knowing what “exotic” meant, Chamberlain signed up. Her opening show was a comedy: her zipper stuck, she fell off the stage. But she liked escaping under the wigs and makeup. “It was like having a schizophrenic moment. I would become an Oriental woman. I felt like a movie star.”

Chapter Six: The murdered man was a photographer. He was stabbed to death in Chamberlain’s apartment. She was charged with second-degree murder, along with one John Nelson. Star clippings describe them as ex- lovers, but Chamberlain says that’s not true. She was sent back to the Clarke to await her trial. One afternoon, a friend opened the front door and helped her escape. She cut her hair, died it black and moved to Vancouver. “I got a room right next door to the police station, because that’s the last place they’ll look for you,” she says. Six weeks later, Fantino flew out to return her in shackles. The jury acquitted her.

Chapter Seven: Chamberlain was homeless on and off for 10 years. She slept in a garbage bag in a park. Her only company was Giorgio the cat. Every morning, they’d wake up early and push their shopping cart of jumbled discards across the city to the Scott Mission. Their only friend was a Miracle Mart employee, who brought them cat food and water every day, and looked after Giorgio when Chamberlain went into a shelter. They were ghosts.

Chapter Eight: Chamberlain’s shrink sent her to Progress Place — a support centre for people with mental illness. “I felt needed and wanted for the first time in my life.” A worker taught her to read and write. She volunteered in the clothing room. They got her a one-room subsidized apartment. She gave a speech at Progress Place’s 10th anniversary. “People started to laugh, and I thought, ‘This is my niche.’ ”

Chapter Nine: Chamberlain’s apartment is cluttered with cats and awards. She founded the Dream Team — psychiatric patients who speak to social work and medical classes. She works once a week in a health program for schizophrenics with diabetes. She runs a charity fostering pets of people with mental illness while they go into hospital. She weaned herself off her medication, replacing it with work and purpose. “I’ve never had more energy in my life,” says Chamberlain, now 62. Tragedy struck just after she returned from Nova Scotia, where she was honoured with yet another award. She has bone and liver cancer.

Chamberlain’s life lessons are rich. Her favourite, she tells me, is the importance of letting go and giving back. “Life is too short. If you give back, not matter what you go through, things will turn around and good things will come to you.”

Her legacy will also be rich. Her friend, welfare policy expert John Stapleton, is recording her life for a book. He also hopes to set up an annual award in her memory. It’s tentatively called “The Linda Chamberlain Turn Around Award.” When will it be established? “Not anytime soon,” says Chamberlain, getting teary for the first time.

To contribute to Chamberlain’s legacy, email speakersbureau@bellnet.ca.

Catherine Porter’s column usually appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. She can be reached at cporter@thestar.ca

Share this:

The rich get richer and the homeless get fined

by Stephen Gaetz
November 10, 2011

Homelessness continues to be a visible problem in most Canadian cities.  I would say most Canadians, when they think about how we respond to homelessness, would consider emergency shelters, drop-ins and soup kitchens – charitable programs set up to shelter and protect people while they are homeless – as central to our response.

But what about policing and law enforcement?  What about the issuing of tickets and fines for panhandling or sleeping in parks?  Such practices, which essentially criminalize homelessness, are every bit as central to our response.
At a time when the growing divide between rich and poor is in the spotlight, how we choose to deal with society’s most vulnerable – the people who occupy our streets not by choice but by necessity – is important to consider.  The criminalization of homelessness runs counter to the “Canadian way.” It is out of line with our principles as a just and civilized society.

Two reports that highlight the downside of criminalizing homelessness in Canada have been released this week.  “Can I See Your ID?  The Policing of Youth Homelessness in Toronto” (Bill O’Grady, Stephen Gaetz, Kristy Buccieri) and “La judiciarisation des personnes en situation d’itinérance à Québec : point de vue des acteurs socio-judiciaires et analyse du phénomène” (Dominique Bernier, Céline Bellot, Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Catherine Chesnay) both explore the impact of policing on homelessness. The first report, Can I See Your ID, reveals that despite strong evidence that panhandling and squeegeeing have declined over the past ten years, the amount of tickets issued under Ontario’s Safe Streets Act has increased exponentially, rising from 780 issued in 2000, to over 15,000 in 2010.  All this has left homeless people with an accumulated debt of over $4 million dollars.

Interviews with street youth reveal that they receive a huge amount of attention from police, not only in the form of tickets, but also through regular ‘stop and searches’. This attention is not limited to those who are criminally involved – the evidence is clear, street youth are being subject to social profiling.  In particular, being young, male and visibly homeless in downtown Toronto means you are very likely to have regular encounters with police.  The second report also documents consistent practices of criminalizing homelessness across seven Canadian cities (Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, and Halifax).

How does any of this make sense?  Issuing fines to people with little or no money does not help them move forward with their lives. It alienates and traumatizes an already marginalized population and makes moving out of homelessness that much more difficult.  Ample research from the United States highlights the negative impact of criminalizing homelessness (Culhane 2010; Ruddick, 1996; NLCHP, 2006; 2009).  While we often consider the use of law enforcement – including both policing and incarceration – as a characteristically ‘American’ response to poverty, we need to accept and realize that we do the same thing in Canada (Hermer & Mosher, 2002; Sommers, 2005; Sylvestre, 2010).  Whether this means creating new laws that target homeless persons, (banning panhandling or sleeping in parks), or simply using existing laws in a disproportionate or discriminatory manner, (tickets for drinking in public, jaywalking etc.), the goal is to harass people who are homeless so they stay away from public places – spaces that we are all entitled to use.  The outcome of all this is debt, a greater likelihood of going to jail, and the outright violation of the rights of Canadian citizens.

In recent years, several Canadian studies have highlighted the bidirectional relationship between homelessness and prison (Gaetz & O’Grady, 2006, 2009; Novac, Hermer, Paradis and Kellen, 2007; Kellen et al., 2010).  That is, being homeless means you are more likely to go to prison, and prisoners – unless they receive effective discharge planning and supports, are more likely to become homeless.

All of this raises important questions. If people are afraid of those who are homeless, should the police intervene?  The answer is no.  One might be afraid of someone because of the way they look, their second hand clothes, their ethnic background, or the colour of their skin, but that doesn’t mean they actually pose a real threat.  Using police intervention to respond to public fear that is based on stereotypes and prejudice is unacceptable.  Then why don’t we object when this happens to people who are homeless?

If the general public, business owners and politicians find homeless people annoying or unseemly and don’t want to see them on their streets or sidewalks, is there an obligation for the State to act?  Perhaps there IS an obligation  . . .  but doesn’t it make more sense to address homelessness by ensuring there are the necessary resources and supports (including an adequate supply of affordable housing) to prevent homelessness in the first place or to help people move into permanent housing?  Let’s stop treating the symptom through punishment, and instead let’s go for the cure!

Share this:

Collective Impact on Poverty: Lessons from Vibrant Communities [By: Mark Cabaj]

In the winter of 2011, John Kania and Mark Kramer wrote a now very popular article for the Stanford Social Innovation Review, that described how diverse organizations and leaders are crossing artificial lines to work together to create “collective” – rather than “isolated” impact.

The staff and partners at Tamarack have been following – and supporting – collective impact initiatives for nearly a decade now in a wide variety of areas (e.g. education, homelessness, health, neighbourhood change). The boldest mechanism the Institute has for doing this is the Vibrant Communities initiative, a ten year “living laboratory” on comprehensive, multi-sector efforts to reduce poverty.

Just recently, Tamarack Institute has published a book – Cities Reducing Poverty: How Vibrant Communities are Creating Comprehensive Solutions to the Most Complex Problem of our Times – that explores one of the biggest tasks of any collective impact initiative – how to tackle the tightly interwoven causes-and-effects of a complex problem (in this case, poverty) through mutually reinforcing (rather than isolated and even competing) activities.

Specifically, the six researchers involved in the project investigated the activities, results and learnings from six local efforts to reduce poverty – from Surrey British Columbia to Saint John New Brunswick – in an effort to answer three simple questions:

1. What are the different ways a group of local organizations and people might tackle the interrelated cause-and-effect factors underlying poverty?
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches?
3. What are the keys to making each approach most successful?

Our investigation was fruitful. We uncovered four different approaches for tackling the inter-related cause-and-effects of poverty, which we named the thousand flowers, pool ball, weaving and hybrid strategies.

We also surfaced five emerging leadership characteristics required for poverty reduction strategies to be effective. These include getting a birds-eye and worms-eye view, navigating local context, learning-by-doing, making vertical and horizontal links between activities, persistence and appropriate expectations.

Finally, we unexpectedly rediscovered the importance of other essential elements of the Vibrant Communities approach, for example, the role of high aspirations in community change efforts, the importance of multi-sector community engagement, and the practical challenges involved in evaluating community-wide poverty reduction work.

The purpose of Vibrant Communities is to systematically explore the potential and practical implications of adapting a “community impact” approach to reducing poverty and to share whatever we’ve learned from our efforts. We believe the results of this study, only one of many to emerge from the initiative, make another small contribution to the poverty reduction movement in Canada.

Related Links:

• Order a copy of Cities Reducing Poverty
• Find more resources on comprehensiveness developed for Vibrant Communities
• Read the Engage! article on Collective Impact
• Listen to the Tamarack’s podcast on Collaborating for Impact with John Kania

Home Means Much More Than a Roof [By: Paul Born]

A smile, a handshake, a hello – these are simple ways to say ‘welcome’ and they are some of the small daily acts that help to build community. Now imagine them being absent from your life, or at least if that was how you perceived it. Could you ever feel at home where you did not feel welcome?

I recently had the privilege to spend time at different “communities” established in British Columbia by More Than a Roof (MTR) Mennonite Housing Society. This organization provides housing to more than 950 people struggling with poverty, poor health and other difficult circumstances.” They take the word ‘community’ seriously and work hard at building a sense of home back into people’s lives. As someone who has been exploring the phenomenon of community for most of the 25 years of my professional life, I am intrigued by More than a Roof’s unique approach.

When I entered Candela Place, my first MTR community, along with the organization’s ever-energetic Executive Director Loren Epp, I was greeted by Dallas, the housing manager. He thrust forward his hand and greeted me with kind words and a big smile. Dallas makes you feel like you just received a bear hug. As people arrived he introduced them and each person gave me a hearty welcome. I honestly didn’t know who was on staff and who was a resident. People started spontaneously sharing their stories their current interests and their volunteering. It’s amazing how productive people are when they have a home.

Some of the words people used to describe Candela Place included: quiet (people loved the peacefulness), family, safe, wonderful and caring. Community was not a word residents used very often (I think they liked the word family better) but community was so evident during our time together.

Kindred Place was established to house singles, with about one-third of the homes reserved for people with mental health issues. During my visit there, we started talking of what it meant to have a home. What I heard was words like: a familiar face, big family, no judgment, safe (no need to lock your door), people who say ‘hi’ and greet you with a smile. As our conversation unfolded I came to realize that Kindred Place was a home where people could grow strong and establish some roots. When I asked, “What’s next?” stories of volunteering and helping others leave addiction and rejoining families poured out. I was deeply inspired and in some strange way felt amazingly proud of each person there.

From Lorne Epp, More Than a Roof’s Executive Director, I learned of the five ways that the Society helps:

1. Addresses poverty by providing affordable shelter
2. Rebuilds physical, mental, spiritual and financial health
3. Introduces or helps restore healthy peer models and relationships, which includes reconnecting with family
4. Rebuilds hope in the human spirit
5. Helps people work through personal conflict

I like this organization. I like what they do and how they think. I like that they build houses AND communities and, in this way, create homes where people belong and feel welcome.

Related Links

• Read Paul’s full blogs about his visits to More than a Roof communities
• Learn more about More than a Roof by visiting their website
• Visit the Seeking Community website for more resources on the power of community
• Listen to The Abundant Community a podcast with Peter Block and John McKnight

Back to top.

A Focus on Community Well-Being [By: Sylvia Cheuy]

Based on economic performance, Canada appears to be faring better than many countries in weathering today’s complex global economic realities. But how does our national economic performance impact the quality-of-life of our citizens?

To help answer this question, the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW) has created a composite measure of wellbeing to provide “a transparent picture of how our quality of life – in all its many dimensions – is changing.” A true partner to GDP, the CIW calculates not just how our economy is faring, but more importantly how our people and communities are faring as a whole, and where we might be headed.

CIW’s recently released report, How Are Canadians Really Doing?, profiles the trend in Canada’s CIW between 1994 and 2008, documenting which domains improved and which got worse; how each of the domains compared to the CIW trend overall; and the GDP per capita. Their conclusion: Canada’s GDP gains are not translating into a better quality of life. In the fifteen year period from 1994 to 2008, Canada’s GDP grew by a robust 31% while our quality of life only improved by a very modest 11%.

As an index, CIW has been recognized as a global leader by the OECD and its creators hope that this “made-in-Canada innovation” will “help governments to make evidence-based policies that are responsive to the needs and values of Canadians….and empower citizens to hold government accountable for achieving progress. The report outlines several ideas for positive change and urges various sectors, communities and individuals to draw on the findings of the CIW to initiate dialogues for social change. Work currently underway within the city of Barrie Ontario is profiled as an example within the CIW’s own report.

The City of Guelph is another example. In 2011, Guelph’s City Council announced its intention to develop a plan for community wellbeing and allocated $100,000 to the plan in its 2011 budget to get this process underway. They have also developed an initial report, entitled A Plan for Wellbeing in Guelph, outlining key models and offering definitions for wellbeing, community engagement, and other key concepts to influence how Guelph should approach the development of a Community Plan for Wellbeing. Poised to move forward, the Mayor Karen Farbridge will convene the Mayor’s Leadership Group on Community Wellbeing inviting a wide range of community leaders to oversee the development of the Initiative.

Most recently, Headwaters Communities in Action (HCIA) – a grassroots citizen group that fosters community leadership and action towards a long-term vision of wellbeing in Dufferin County and the Town of Caledon – recently released its own report on community wellbeing at an event with more than 100 community leaders and keynote speaker John Tory of CivicAction.

The report, entitled The Headwaters Community Well-Being Report, uses both data and stories to highlight community strengths and opportunities for further action. A citizen survey, which asked residents to identify what community well-being meant to them, was used as the foundation for identifying the Report’s nine topic areas.

Citizen and community engagement principles have been central in the creation of The Headwaters Community Well-Being Report. HCIA – who received start-up support from Tamarack in 2005 – had clear direction from citizens in earlier community consultations that such a report was “needed to encourage greater regional understanding and collaboration.”

HCIA’s Chair, Leesa Fawcett notes, “Strong communities are places where residents interact more often about civic issues, mobilize the talents of their neighbours, and honour the unique environmental, social and economic features where they live.” HCIA’s aim is for the report is to “reflect upon what we heard and initiate deeper conversations that move us to collective action for vibrant, just and sustainable community living.”

It would seem that a growing number of communities are using the lens of wellbeing as a powerful catalyst for shared community action.

Related links:

• Read How Are Canadians Really Doing?
• Visit the Canadian Index of Wellbeing website
• Download the Headwaters Community Well-Being Report
• Visit the Headwaters Communities in Action website
• Download A Plan for Wellbeing in Guelph
• Listen to More Collaboration & Citizen Engagement a Tamarack podcast with the CIW

Back to top.

Citizen Participation in a Digital Age [By: Sylvia Cheuy]

What kinds of information do communities need in order to inform and engage citizens and strengthen democratic action? In today’s fast-paced world of social media, what is important to offer “relevant and meaningful” information that “enable(s) people to become informed, engage with one another, address the issues they care about and create the community they want?”

Assessing Community Information Needs: A Practical Guide is a practical guide developed by the Aspen Institute to help individuals and groups to assess and build what they refer to as “a healthy community information environment.” Underpinning the paper is a simple guiding principle: “The steps one takes to create a healthy information environment must be relevant to what matters most to people in the community, enable people to engage in the public life of their community and create the conditions for people to engage with one another.”

The Report suggests that a fundamental shift is needed in how people’s information needs are met. This shift, in part, urges the creation of multiple information sources in the community so that people have “many and varied touch-points” to access information. Four important considerations and nine strategies are offered to help communities assess and build a healthy information environment. The four considerations are:

1. Those seeking to assess and build a strong information environment must turn outward toward their community.
2. Progress in building a robust information environment will come best and fastest by using a specific issue to focus a community’s efforts.
3. Emphasis should be placed on how knowledge is generated in a community and on its quality and flow, not solely on counting and increasing the sources and volume of information.
4. Taking effective action requires innovation, not simply good planning.

This is a valuable resource to anyone interested in finding new ways to mobilize people to help strengthen communities. And, the authors remind us, citizens are yearning for this type of connection with one another and with efforts to be part of something that makes a positive difference in their own lives and the lives of their neighbours. What they need is information and practical ways by which to come together and take shared action. Creating a “healthy information environment” is an essential task for accomplishing this.

Related links:

• Read Assessing Community Information Needs: A Practical Guide
• Visit the Aspen Institute Website
• Learn more about the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy
• Find more resources on Online Community at Tamarack

Back to top.

ALLIES: A Network of Support – A Movement for Change
[By: Anne Makoul]

Last month, the Caledon Institute of Social Policy completed a review of the work of ALLIES – Assisting Local Leaders with Immigrant Employment Strategies. ALLIES’ ultimate goal is to create a national movement of locally-engaged communities capable of providing successful employment solutions for skilled immigrants.

ALLIES had the good fortune of building on the successes and lessons learned by the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council (TRIEC), the Waterloo Region Immigrant Employment Network, Hire Immigrants Ottawa and Vibrant Communities. Though Vibrant Communities’ focus is on poverty reduction and community revitalization, its work provided ALLIES with an example of a national structure that was adaptable to local circumstances.

The report which is entitled, ALLIES: A Network of Support, A Movement for Change, summarizes the insights of ALLIES’ conveners across the country, as well as the reflections of employers that have used and championed ALLIES’ National Mentorship Initiative. Its Lessons to Share section offers insights for other would-be pioneers who might be contemplating the building of other multi-sector initiatives. These include:

1. Consider Boldness – be prepared to act on your issue. Adapt your strategies and messages as people choose to come…or not.

1. Maintain a Clear Focus – on your purpose and issue.

1. Engage Employers – If employers are a desired partner group, engage them directly (instead of going through employer associations or industry groups).

1. Focus on Actionable Ideas – Bring well-formed, actionable ideas to the table. If possible, they should build directly from your experience or that of your partners.

1. Establish a Climate of Mutual Learning – This enables partner groups are encouraged to address deficits and build capacities.

1. Evaluate - Design evaluation tools and schedules that demonstrate your ability to achieve your goals.

1. Attend to Local Context - When operating in multiple jurisdictions, engage local conveners that understand the local context and can achieve buy-in from local leaders.

1. Cultivate Leadership - Having a few, well-respected, effective leaders in the room trumps having representation all the ‘right’ organizations and sectors.

The work of ALLIES offers valuable insights and practices for how Canadian communities can promote the appropriate hiring of skilled immigrants in their communities.  Not only does this benefit the countless skilled individuals who arrive in Canada annually from around the world, it also contributes to strengthening the resilience, prosperity and vitality of Canadian communities by ensuring that skilled immigrants are supported in making successful transitions to Canada’s labour force.

Related links:

• Download ALLIES: A Network of Support, A Movement for Change
• Learn more about the ALLIES Project
• Visit the Caledon Institute for Social Policy Website

Building Immigration Partnerships [By: Sylvia Cheuy]

The successful attraction and retention of new immigrants is increasingly being recognized as a central strategy for local communities to address critical gaps in their local labour force. As a result, there is growing recognition that, in addition to federal and provincial organizations, local municipalities can and do play a central role in supporting successful immigration.

The Welcoming Communities Initiative (WCI) is a multidisciplinary alliance of universities, colleges, and community organizations dedicated to promoting the integration of immigrants and minorities across Ontario. Recently, they have created the Local Immigration Partnership Handbook as a resource for communities to assist in the effective integration of newcomers so that they become fully engaged in the economic, social, political and cultural life in Canada.

The Local Immigration Partnership Handbook recommends the establishment of leadership roundtables, called Local Immigration Partnerships (LIPs), whose role is to work collaboratively at the local level to establish a local settlement strategy and targeted action plan to create welcoming communities that effectively attract and retain immigrants. This is appreciated as a two-way process where both the new immigrant and the host community adjust and change.

Related links:

• Visit the Welcoming Communities website for more information about this project
• Read the Local Immigration Partnership Handbook
• Find more resources on Immigration and New Canadians on the Tamarack Website

Vibrant Communities Across Canada Updates

• Uptake Is Improving for Free Education Money
  Vibrant Communities initiatives across Canada are helping spread the word about the Canada Learning Bond. Low income families can get free money to invest for the education of their children, but uptake of the program has been slow as families don’t know about it or face barriers gathering the documents or starting the savings plans that are required to receive the grant.The Maytree Foundation outlined some of the issues in their publication, Policy in Focus in 2010. SmartSaver.org is a program sponsored by the Omega Foundation, focused on improving awareness and access to the bond in Toronto. Recently, 60,000 Toronto households received vouchers outlining exactly what amount they could claim from the program. Business leaders have also supported the bond because better education leads to more prosperity for all.

  Vibrant Communities Saint John is holding a bond blitz to raise awareness, while Opportunities Waterloo Region will host an event this month to promote the opportunity to low income families. More>>

• Abbottsford: Evaluating Candidates
  Vibrant Abbottsford has promoted voter engagement in the upcoming municipal election via their Twitter feed and elsewhere. An Abbottsford researcher recently developed provided a checklist that can help voters choose based on qualifications rather than name recognition. The researcher engaged 20 community leaders to help develop a checklist that would help voters rate candidates for municipal elected positions according to 10 job qualifications, broken into three groups – knowledge, skills, and personal strengths. Read more here.  Vibrant Abbottsford has also been active researching and promoting a Living Wage for Abbottsford. They calculate that a wage earner working fulltime needs $16.42 to meet basic needs in Abbottsford. More>>

• Tracking More than GDP
  The Canadian Index of Wellbeing launched its first-ever composite report at the end of October 2011. It shows that in the fifteen year period from 1994 to 2008, Canada’s GDP grew by a robust 31% while our quality of life only improved by a very modest 11%. Read more about the index and the different domains it tracks in their report, How are Canadians Really Doing, or in this Tamarack audio seminar.

Share this:

The long view: Frances Lankin co-chairs a massive review of Ontario’s social support structure

Related Images

“Public policy,” says Frances Lankin, “is not an exercise in sheer logic.”

So call it an exercise in endurance, or an experiment in stamina. Lankin brings both qualities to her new role as co-commissioner of Ontario’s Social Assistance Review Committee, a massive policy meditation spelled out in the province’s 2008 Poverty Reduction Strategy. Lankin — erstwhile provincial NDP cabinet minister and the former head of United Way Toronto who oversaw publication of the organization’s seminal Poverty by Postal Code — is joined by Dr. Munir Sheik, an economist and the former head of Statistics Canada.

The two of them will be mining programs like Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). They’ll examine the policy interface between different levels of government. They’ll cut through the reams of red tape embodied in the approximately 800 rules bureaucrats and applicants have to navigate to access or disseminate benefits. Meetings have been ramping up in the past couple months. Come June 2012, the commission will deliver a set of recommendations, possibly to a government of a different political stripe than the one that commissioned their work.

“We have meetings with both opposition parties to get their point of view,” she says. “And we’re being really practical about building a set of recommendations that can really hopefully see some traction on areas across the political spectrum.”

Whether the Liberals triumph in October or the Conservatives surf the frothy foam of Ford populism to the Premier’s Office — or even if Lankin’s former party returns to government — the odds of an overhauled social security system are likely. And that has big implications for Toronto.

Because of its sheer size relative to other municipal entities in the province, Toronto necessarily represents a significant piece of the province’s social assistance scenario — about one-third, Lankin estimates. In 2010, the total cost of OW for Toronto, which included allowances, administration and employment assistance, was $1,026 million, of which the city kicked in $233 million. For ODSP, the total cost, including allowances and benefits, was $756 million, of which the city footed $76 million.

As of the turn of this year, the province fully uploaded the service, removing the city’s obligation and, according to government numbers, saving Ontario municipalities $1.5 billion by 2018.

Caseloads, meanwhile, vary month to month for both programs. In February 2011, there were 84,560 OW case files and 62,020 for ODSP. Each caseload can represent a number of beneficiaries, however, so the true reach of OW that month was 152,137 Torontonians, while ODSP represented 84,986. Tens of thousands of these people were children.

“This system is designed to help people get back to work or to provide adequate support for them if they can’t work,” Lankin says. “There’s a question about whether it’s doing either of those things very well right now.”

Complicating matters is that problems within the system are compounded by trends and changes in broader society. The post-recession emergence of precarious employment — part-time or temporary jobs — creates a revolving door that swings people in and out of the system, essentially bogging them and their families in a poverty swamp.

“We need to look at that and understand all of the elements that are at play there,” she says. “There are some clients who will find their way back into employment. There are other clients who are going to need very intensive supports and interventions and perhaps basic training — literacy and numeracy training — at a more intense level. That can, up front, appear to be a very costly model. But there’s a pay-off if that person is able to then get employment that keeps them employed and on a different life path than the revolving door.”

That kind of cost-benefit paradox seems to be on the rise when addressing social ailments. In January, the Calgary Homeless Foundation, fronted by some major players in big business, celebrated 10 years of a strategy that gives, outright, homes to the homeless. The foundation figured the societal cost of each chronically homeless individual at $100,000. It estimates the city’s chronically homeless population is between 800 and 1,600. The organization’s anniversary was feted by National Post columnist Kevin Libin in the March 2011 edition of The Financial Post. The situation may have repulsive optics if you’re a taxpaying homeowner, Libin wrote, but the numbers still make fine sense.

Lankin and the commission are exploring similar ideas to address the very specific challenges experienced by members of the disabled community. Many people with disabilities are ready and able to work, but they face enormous barriers in the workplace, from infrastructural accessibility to hesitant employers. Lankin says society writes off an enormous portion of these people, whether from part-time employment or full-time, and the result is personal struggle and societal cost. Addressing issues of workplace accommodation is a huge and long-fought battle. If the commission were able to somehow address it, it would still be left with a group of people who are too disabled to work.

“If we were to do that, I think we’d also have to ask ourselves the question about those people who truly, as the result of disabilities, are unable to work at all,” Lankin says. “Is it appropriate for us to be providing support for them through what is a social assistance or welfare system? Or should there be a separate disability benefit where we look to a coordinated effort between the federal and provincial governments around how people with very severe disabilities are supported to live a life with dignity?”

In other words, is the temporary support or top-up mandate of the province’s social security system appropriate? Or is full-income support more necessary, for individuals and society?

A discussion paper exploring these and a labyrinth of other issues is due out in May. Feedback will be gathered from that paper, and a costing exercise will begin. In November, an options paper will be released based on that information, and the final recommendations are due out in the summer of 2012.

Paul Carlucci is a GTA based writer.

Share this:

Copyright © 2000-11, The Society for Disability Studies.

Share this:

THE COST OF CARING: Report on the Consultation on Discrimination on the Basis of Family Status

VI. HOUSING

1. Introduction

Canada, as a signatory to a number of international human rights instruments, has recognized that adequate housing is a fundamental human right. With the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Canada committed to take appropriate steps towards the realization of the right to adequate housing.^[72] While the Code does not protect the broad range of social and economic rights set out in international instruments, it affirms the right to equal treatment in the occupancy of accommodation without discrimination on the basis of family status, or other grounds, and the values reflected in international human rights laws are an aid to interpreting human rights legislation.

It is clear that for many families with young children, these international and domestic housing rights are an unrealized promise. Families continue to struggle in the rental housing market, and may find themselves in housing that is neither affordable nor adequate. This is particularly true for lone-parent families; families in receipt of social assistance; families from racialized, Aboriginal and newcomer communities; and those who have young children.

Subsidized housing in Toronto is terribly difficult to get. Waiting lists are long, locations are sparse and often not located in downtown Toronto. The apartment that we live in now is safe and in a good location, but very difficult for me to afford.
Lone mother

While consultees from all perspectives – landlord groups, tenant advocacy groups, non-profit housing providers, and academics – agreed that vulnerable families continue to struggle in the rental housing market, there were differing opinions on the reasons why, and on the most effective remedies.

The Role of Poverty

Consultees agree that poverty is a significant part of the problem. Families with young children, lone-parent families, parents with disabilities or parents of children with disabilities, Aboriginal families, families from racialized communities and newcomer families are more likely to be low income. As well, when two parents are living separately, but sharing custody of their children, affordable adequate housing in two locations may pose significant difficulties. The connection between membership in a group identified under the Code and the likelihood of being low income was recognized by the Board of Inquiry in Kearney v. Bramalea^[73], when it ruled that rent-to-income criteria have a discriminatory effect. Measures that disadvantage those who are low-income are likely to disproportionately disadvantage members of Code-identified groups.

As of December 2005, over 50% of the beneficiaries of the Ontario Works social assistance program (OW) were members of lone parent families.^[74] For these, and other families in receipt of social assistance, the very low shelter allowances put beneficiaries in the untenable circumstance of having to choose between shelter and the other necessities of life.^[75] The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) pointed out that almost all (96%) of OW beneficiaries are tenants, but only 17% of these live in subsidized housing – the rest are attempting to find adequate, affordable housing in the private rental market. In many areas of the province, there is simply no adequate rental housing available to families in the private rental market within the limits of the shelter allowance. Many submissions emphasized the crucial importance of raising the social assistance shelter allowance to levels that cover actual rental rates.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) informed the Commission about recent steps that it has taken to ensure that persons in receipt of social assistance are able to pay the rent. For example, in March 2004, a Provincial Rent Bank was created to help tenants with short-term arrears to enable them to stay in their homes. MCSS has also developed an Emergency Energy Fund to help low-income households deal with energy-related crises. This fund provides one-time emergency assistance to deal with payment of energy utility arrears, security deposits and reconnection fees. As well, where recipients of OW or Ontario Disability Support Program benefits (ODSP) have not been meeting their financial obligations, the administrator may direct a portion of social assistance for payment of arrears required to prevent eviction.

Supply of Adequate, Affordable Housing

Most consultees, though not all, saw the dearth of adequate affordable housing as one of the root causes of the problem that families have in accessing housing. The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA) stated that:

[T]he reality is that if there is no shortage of housing, landlords are much less likely to discriminate. And in the world of social housing, one of the categories the discussion paper focuses on as disadvantaged (victims of violence, who are in practice predominantly women with children), in fact receive specific and extensive priority. ONPHA’s view is that the primary (though not the only) issue is the shortage of affordable housing…The primary focus has to be on ensuring adequate affordable supply. (emphasis in the original)

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) told the Commission that the province’s Housing Agenda aims at increasing rental supply through initiatives that will strengthen tenancies and keep tenants in their homes, as well as new programs to create more affordable housing and support those with special housing needs. For example, a new Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program will create more than 15,000 units of affordable housing, including new supportive housing and housing for victims of domestic violence. The program will also provide housing allowance assistance to 5,000 low-income Ontario families.

There were many suggestions as to how the lack of adequate, affordable housing could be addressed. Many of the housing-related submissions received by the Commission raised the issue of rent control. ACTO said:

With the introduction of vacancy decontrol in 1998, there has been little incentive for landlords to mediate with tenants who have lived in their units for a long time, and every incentive to get them evicted in order to increase the rent; resulting in fewer ‘affordable’ units. Average rents in Ontario have continued to increase, despite an increase in the vacancy rates. Vacancy decontrol has put affordable housing out of the reach of many low-income families in Ontario. ACTO has urged the provincial government to reintroduce rent regulation on all units, whether vacant or occupied, in order to preserve affordable housing units.

On the other hand, the Federation of Rental Housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) argued that rent controls create a barrier to access, because they lead to housing shortages. The result of these shortages, FRPO states, is “many tenants vying for too few apartments. In this situation it is often the most poor and vulnerable households who lose out. The overall results for society can be devastating”. According to FRPO, vacancy decontrol has led to an increase in vacancy rates, particularly at the lower end of the spectrum, which has provided more choice for poor and vulnerable families in Ontario.

MMAH told the Commission that the government is committed to developing a new system of regulating rents that would provide better protection for tenants.

There was also debate, both in the submissions received by the Commission and at the Housing Roundtable, on the effect of zoning by-laws that exclude or severely limit second suites. Concerns have been raised about the ability to effectively ensure health and safety requirements in second suites; however, others point out that such suites are a major source of affordable housing. As well, the Commission heard concerns about by-laws that limit or prohibit social service establishments, hostels or affordable housing projects. Stakeholders told the Commission that such by-laws have the effect of excluding people from housing on the basis of personal circumstances, including the Code grounds of disability, family status, and receipt of social assistance.

Submissions also raised concerns about the conversion of rental housing stock to other uses, such as condominiums, as this is having the effect of rapidly decreasing the supply of affordable housing. MMAH told the Commission that it is committed to ensuring that municipalities have the right to protect existing rental housing stock from unreasonable demolition or conversion to condominiums.

Discriminatory Attitudes and Stereotypes

Based on the above, it is clear that discrimination against families in the rental housing market must be understood in the context of these broad social and economic concerns about inadequate income, and inadequate supply of affordable housing.

Added to these systemic problems is the continuing and common practice by rental housing providers of direct discrimination against families with young children. Many consultees emphasized the major impact on families of the widespread lack of knowledge of Code rights and responsibilities, among both landlords and tenants. The Landlord’s Self Help Centre told the Commission that the secondary rental market is estimated to represent 40% of private rental housing providers in Ontario, and 15-20% of rental housing stock in Toronto. These housing providers are typically not professionals, and often possess very little or no property management skills or experience. They therefore have little exposure to information about their obligations under the Code. The Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA) pointed out that many landlords are completely unaware that they cannot refuse individuals or families because they are in receipt of social assistance, and will acknowledge outright to CERA staff that they ‘don’t rent to people on welfare’.

The lack of awareness goes beyond lack of knowledge of the Code. There are also deep-rooted stereotypes and myths at play about persons in receipt of social assistance, lone parent families, and newcomers, among others. Perhaps the strongest message the Commission received through the Housing Roundtable was the importance of a strong public awareness and education campaign for landlords, to undertake “myth-busting” as well as education about the Code.

Landlords are prone to view our clients as unsuitable tenants despite the safeguards in the Code due to their disability, their family status or their income source. Potential landlords and the general public must be educated that our clients come from all walks of life and are not a homogeneous group. They are no more likely than their fellow citizens to default on housing payments … [I]ncreasing rental housing stocks or even social assistance rates will not cure the problem of landlord discrimination.
MCSS

Similarly, the Commission heard that tenants themselves are often unaware of their rights. The most vulnerable tenants are also the individuals least likely to be aware of their rights, or to be in a position to enforce their rights, especially given the complexity and timelines associated with filing a complaint under the Code.

When contemplating the impact of family status on housing, it is important to keep in mind the additional effect of intersecting Code grounds. For example, ARCH reminded the Commission that persons with disabilities and their families experience particular difficulties in accessing housing because they must find housing that is both accessible to persons with disabilities, and ‘family friendly’; this operates as a ‘double whammy’. The Commission also heard of the housing difficulties experienced by parents who are raising children with disabilities that manifest behaviourally: often landlords and other tenants will have little patience with the difficulties experienced by such parents. OFIFC told the Commission that

Some landlords may not want to rent to Aboriginal people because of racist attitudes. Additionally, it is a fact that Aboriginal people have the highest rates of single moms as heads of households (27% of all families) and a number of these moms are teenagers. Finding accommodations for this group is very difficult, and even single Aboriginal dads find it difficult to find proper accommodations for them and their children for similar reasons.

Any consideration of the experiences of families in the rental housing market must therefore take into account the effect of multiple aspects of identity, not only in terms of stereotypes and direct discrimination, but also in terms of the impact of systemic factors.

Participants in the Housing Roundtable had many creative ideas for ensuring that tenants are better informed about their rights, such as requiring all landlords to post copies of the Code in building lobbies, or including information about human rights on rental application and lease forms, or providing accreditation for landlords who show that they have had training or education on human rights.

2. Refusal to Rent to Families with Young Children

As indicated above, despite the long-standing protections under the Code, the practice among landlords of denying rental housing to families with young children remains widespread.

It is difficult as a single parent, landlords prefer a two-income family. While looking for housing, I have been turned away many times because landlords are concerned that rent will not be paid, even with a good track record.
Lone mother in receipt of social assistance

I’ve been looking for housing for two years now. Each application has been denied. I’ve also had numerous conversations with potential landlords where they stated that their apartment was not ‘suitable for children’.
Lone mother

One of the ways in which this outright refusal to rent to families with young children operates is the continued existence of “adult only” or “adult lifestyle” buildings. Other euphemisms indicating that families need not apply include “geared to young professionals” or “would suit students”.

The Code does permit age restrictions in housing under some circumstances. For example, section 15 of the Code permits preferential treatment of persons aged 65 and over, and therefore permits housing that is limited to persons over the age of 64. Section 14 of the Code permits special programs to alleviate hardship and disadvantage, such as specially designed barrier-free housing projects aimed at older persons with disabilities. Section 18 creates a defence for religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social institutions or organizations that primarily serve the interests of older persons and that provide housing as part of their services. However, there is no defence that permits “adult lifestyle” housing that results in the exclusion of children or persons under a certain age.^[76] Given these Code exceptions, FRPO points out that there may be confusion among landlords as to what the law permits.

The fact that there is an age threshold at which a seniors-only building is allowed may lead to some confusion in the marketplace. The definition of a senior may vary for many people. Many people retire before age 60. Some people think of seniors as aged 55 plus, and others as aged 60 plus.

In light of this confusion, FRPO, like many other stakeholders, urged the Commission to undertake an education and awareness campaign among landlords.

MCSS told the Commission that persons with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to the effects of adults-only policies:

Many of our clients require housing stock which reflects their individual disability. The bulk of such housing is set aside for the aged or is found in buildings reserved for adults only under the exemptions found in the Code. However, there is a need to recognize that many of our clients fall under the umbrella of disability and family status – they are disabled with families. Exemptions for adults-only disability-focused housing effectively discriminate against the disabled parents of young children.

ONPHA told the Commission that many housing providers have taken steps to open buildings that were formerly “seniors only” to accommodate younger singles, in recognition of the fact that there is limited demand for the housing from older age groups. However, these changes have brought with them some issues in terms of integrating populations with diverse expectations and needs.

3. Rental Criteria

During the consultation, the Commission heard about a number of common rental policies and practices among landlords that create systemic barriers for families attempting to access housing.

Income Information

The use by landlords of minimum income criteria or rent-to-income ratios has been found to violate the Code. The Board of Inquiry in Kearney v. Bramalea^[77] held that these practices have a disparate impact on groups protected under the Code, including those identified by family status, and that these policies were not bona fide as they have no value in predicting whether a tenant will default on rent.

The Code was subsequently amended to state that landlords may, when selecting tenants, use income information, credit checks, credit references, rental history guarantees or other business practices, in accordance with the Act and regulations. Regulation 290/98 permits landlords to:

• Request credit references and/or rental history from a prospective tenant, as well as authorization to conduct credit checks.
• Use credit references, rental history and credit checks, alone or in combination to assess and to select or refuse tenants.
• Request income information if the above information was also requested (credit references and checks, rental history).
• Consider the income information and make a decision accordingly only if the other information is also considered, or if, having also requested the other information about credit and rental history, only the income information is provided. There is an exception for the use of income to assess eligibility for rent-geared-to-income housing.
• Require tenants to obtain guarantees for the rent or to pay a security deposit in accordance with the Tenant Protection Act.

The Regulation reaffirms that nothing in it authorizes a landlord to refuse housing on the basis of Code grounds.

It is the Commission’s position that landlords must give meaningful and valid consideration to the prescribed criteria, in a bona fide effort to validly assess potential tenants. They may not apply them in an arbitrary manner for a prohibited discriminatory reason that would attempt to defeat the purposes of the Code.

The Commission heard that there are continuing issues with the use of income information by landlords, and that landlords are misinterpreting or misapplying the provisions of the Code and Reg. 290/98 and continuing to apply rent to income ratios.

The use of minimum income requirements and rent-to-income ratios continues to be a major barrier for low-income families with children attempting to secure appropriate housing. Despite a number of Board of Inquiry/Human Rights Tribunal decisions which clarify that the use of these requirements to screen out prospective tenants is not permitted under the Code, landlords regularly use these ‘affordability’ rules to deny low income families access to housing… many landlords (and others) equate the use of ‘income information’ in tenant selection with a sanctioning of the use of rent-to-income ratios.
CERA

The Ministry of Community and Social Services also identified these practices as barriers for ODSP recipients, stating, “ODSP recipients would benefit from an elimination of income criteria and questions about source of income for most rental housing applications. Landlords should instead rely on references and payment history alone.”

Credit History

As noted above, Regulation 290/98 permits landlords to request credit references and to conduct credit checks (with permission from the prospective tenant), and to consider this information in selecting or refusing a tenant. As noted above, it is the Commission’s position that when landlords consider such information, they must do so in a bona fide effort to validly assess potential tenants.

The Commission heard that poor credit history can be the result of family breakdown, and that many women have poor credit histories for this reason. However, some landlords have a blanket policy of not renting to those with poor credit history, which can have a disproportionate impact based on family status.

As well, many young people, new Canadians, and women returning to the workforce after lengthy periods of caregiving may have little or no credit history. In Ahmed v. Shelter Canadian Properties Limited^[78], a human rights Board of Inquiry found that the practice of requiring credit history may have a disparate impact on newcomers, and further emphasized that the lack of a credit history is not the same thing as a negative credit history. The landlord was ordered to cease and desist from the practice of rejecting tenancy applications from newcomers with no credit history.

Requirement for Co-Signors

The Commission heard that it is the practice of many landlords to automatically require low-income applicants (particularly those in receipt of social assistance) to provide a co-signor or guarantor. Often the landlords will place restrictive rent-to-income ratios on the co-signors. This is a major barrier for these families, as few have access to a co-signor or guarantor, particularly not one that can meet the requested rent-to-income ratios.

While the use of co-signors or guarantors may be appropriate where a tenant has poor references or a history of default, requiring co-signors or guarantors merely because an applicant is in receipt of social assistance may be a violation of the Code. Although section 2(1) of Regulation 290/98 permits landlords to require a prospective tenant to provide a guarantor, section 4 of that Regulation emphasizes the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of the Code grounds, including receipt of social assistance.

Rental History

Some groups protected by the Code may have little or no rental history: for example, women re-establishing themselves after a marital breakdown, or newcomers to Canada. The Commission heard that a landlords’ treatment of prospective tenants without a rental history may have an adverse impact on groups identified under the Code.

[R]ecent immigrants and refugees experience systemic discrimination when they are unable to provide references (usually require references in Canada) in order to secure rental housing. Consequently, some landlords have asked these applicants to provide a large security deposit, in some cases as much as 12 months of rent.
OCASI

The Code and Regulation 290/98 permit landlords to request information about a prospective tenant’s rental history. However, the decision in Ahmed^[79] makes it clear that the lack of a rental history should not be treated in the same way as a negative rental history.

Employment History

The Commission heard that some landlords require that applicants have ‘stable’ long-term employment, and that this may create barriers based upon Code grounds, including age, gender, family and marital status, and disability.

These requirements have clear adverse impacts on young people who are new to the workforce. They also can be very problematic for women with children leaving relationships after long periods as stay-at-home caregivers. Following the end of a relationship, these women will have to re-enter the workforce to support their children and themselves, and will often have irregular and seemingly unstable work histories as they try to find a place of employment that will best provide for their families.
CERA

In Sinclair v. Morris A. Hunter Investments^[80], a Board of Inquiry found that rental policies requiring applicants to be employed on a permanent basis or to satisfy a criterion of minimum tenure with an employer discriminated against rental applicants on the basis of age, as the expert evidence indicated that there is a very strong relationship between age and job tenure, and between age and the likelihood of having permanent employment.

4. Policies Related to Occupancy of Accommodation

Occupancy Policies

Consultees expressed concerns regarding occupancy policies. For example, a lone mother told us that she had often been told that she needed a larger residence because she had three people; however, a couple with a child could rent a two bedroom with no problem. CERA told us that:

[T]here is significant resistance from housing providers to rent to families where a parent has to share a bedroom with a child or children, where children have to share rooms (particularly if they are of the opposite sex), where a family member has to sleep in the living room, etc. ..[T]hese policies effectively deny families access to the units they can afford.

The OFIFC told the Commission that some families may need to take responsibility for an extended family member or friend’s child or children, and the landlord may then complain that these children are not identified on the lease and the number of permissible occupants has been exceeded.

The Commission heard that the lack of available and affordable accommodations for larger families may result in overcrowding, simply because families have no other choices.

A number of consultees stated that while demonstrated health and safety concerns can be used to justify occupancy standards, this provides no basis for forbidding children of different sexes from sharing bedrooms, or parents from sharing with their children. CERA argued that municipal occupancy standards, or overcrowding by-laws provide sufficient and acceptable occupancy standards.
FRPO disagreed.

Almost all businesses in Ontario have policies which charge users based on the amount they consume… There is no reason that the rental housing industry should be treated differently than any other industry. Many of our costs vary with household size. For example, utility costs such as electricity, hot water and water and sewer services are paid for most often by the landlord in Ontario, as these costs are bulk metered. The owner has to recoup these costs through rents that are charged to occupants. These costs rise with the number of occupants… By having policies that ensure overcrowding does not take place in any given unit, the industry has a way of ensuring there is a closer relationship between rents charged and the costs being incurred.

ONPHA told the Commission that at some point, crowding becomes unacceptable, and even contrary to property standards. “A building with very crowded units becomes impossible to manage with negative consequences for all tenants”. ONPHA went on to say that:

ONPHA’s position is not that landlords should be permitted to be rigid and refuse to allow access to smaller units if this, in fact, would otherwise make waiting time less or improve affordability. However, there is a bigger picture to consider. Legislation can often be overly narrow in its perspective in dealing with issues where the consequences of a single decision to allow crowding may not be major, but the consequences of many decisions would be very damaging to the health of the overall community, and therefore of all those living in that community.

In Desroches v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne),^[81] the Quebec Court of Appeal found that policies regarding the number of occupants per number of rooms or bedrooms may have an adverse impact on families with children. Where a policy has an adverse impact on a group protected under the Code, the housing provider must show that the policy is a bona fide requirement, in that it is related to a valid objective, was adopted in good faith, and could not be designed in a way that would accommodate without incurring undue hardship.

Definition of ‘Tenant’

Under the Tenant Protection Act (TPA)^[82], a tenant is defined to include “a person who pays rent in return for the right to occupy a rental unit and includes the tenant’s heirs, assigns and personal representatives”. This does not include spouses and family members who ordinarily reside in the rental unit. Therefore, when the ‘tenant’ dies or vacates the unit, spouses or family members may have no rights. This may leave families at a serious disadvantage. ACTO brought to the Commission’s attention one case where a landlord brought eviction proceedings against a woman and her three children after the husband, who signed the rent cheques, left. Prior to the husband’s departure, he signed a Notice of Termination at the request of the landlord. The woman had been living there for 17 years. This case was eventually settled, with the landlord agreeing to allow the family to stay at the same low rent.

No Transfer Policies

Some landlords have policies prohibiting tenants from transferring between rental units in the same building. Such policies may have a negative impact on families with children, because their rental housing needs change as their families grow, but they must leave their building in order to accommodate their need for additional space.

FRPO argued that no-transfer policies are not in fact discriminatory, unless applied only to families, and that these policies are based on sound business practices:

Companies that have such a policy do so for good business reasons. For example, transfers come with transaction costs. They increase administration costs. But, more important, turnover costs on each suite can be substantial, particularly in current market conditions in Ontario… A transfer within a building results in the creation of two turnovers where there would have otherwise been one, significantly increasing costs for the owner.

In Ward v. Godina^[83], a Board of Inquiry found that no transfer policies have an adverse impact on families with children, and violate the Code.

Health and Safety Concerns

The Commission heard that some landlords have a practice of refusing to rent apartments on the upper floors of buildings to families with young children, on the basis of health and safety concerns. MMAH told the Commission that there should be no reason why landlords can use the issue of children’s safety as a reason for barring families from renting in high-rise apartments, as the TPA requires landlords to keep their buildings and rental units in a good state of repair, and to ensure that all health, safety and maintenance standards are met. Other stakeholders pointed out that landlords should be taking positive steps to accommodate the needs of families with young children.

[T]he lack of ground floor apartments should not be cause to refuse to rent to a family with young children. ..It is the landlord’s responsibility to accommodate differences between people in their living situations, and this includes the needs of families, concerning safety and reasonable enjoyment.
Federation of Metro Tenants Associations (FMTA)

Access to Recreational Facilities and Common Areas

Over the years, the Commission has regularly heard about situations in which landlords or condominium corporations place restrictions on access to recreational facilities or common areas by children or youth.

MCSS told the Commission that rules restricting access to facilities on the basis of family status have a disproportionate impact on families that include persons with disabilities:

Our clients and their families are most in need of housing that includes access to swimming pools, fitness equipment and laundry facilities. Recreation and services benefit their endeavours to participate in society and is encouraged. Many of these recreational facilities bar use by children – and hence by their parents – and where our disabled clients rely on caregivers to assist them, laundry facilities sometimes restrict access to residents only, eliminating non-resident caregivers.
MCSS

FMTA noted that landlords will sometimes make rules about loitering or noise, in reaction to negative attitudes about youth, particularly racialized youth.

Families with older children – that is, teenagers, may find negative attitudes or stereotypes directed toward their children, especially children of colour, who are often seen as criminal, trouble-makers, etc. Landlords often make rules about loitering, or noise, to keep youth out of the common areas of buildings.

FMTA pointed out that “While, on the one hand, noise and certain behaviour of youth may interfere with reasonable enjoyment of tenants in the building, on the other hand, young people are also tenants in the building, and have the right to the use of common areas for common purposes.”

In Leonis v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation,^[84] a Board of Inquiry held that a policy restricting access to recreational facilities for children under the age of 16 discriminated on the basis of family status.

Other Issues

ACTO raised the issue of the lack of external appeal procedures under the Social Housing Reform Act^[85] from decisions of social housing providers to deny or revoke housing subsidies. Revocation of subsidies may lead to evictions, as rent falls into arrears. ACTO stated that:

Social housing tenants, many of whom are sole support mothers, disabled people and immigrants, risk homelessness because the only appeal is an ‘internal review’. These internal reviews are conducted by the same housing provider that made the decision under review. Social housing providers rarely overturn decisions on internal review. When the review is unfair, the only process potentially available is judicial review.

As well, concerns were raised about the administration of the requirement, under the Social Housing Reform Act, for occupants to report a change in income or household size. Managers have the discretion to extend this timeline; however, not all do, so that families that fail to quickly report the addition of a child to the household may lose their subsidy.

5. Children’s Noise

One of the most frequently raised issues with respect to housing was children’s noise. Persons living in rental housing are living in close quarters. Children, by their nature, can be noisy. Babies cry, toddlers have loud voices, and children run and jump and play. Some conflict is perhaps inevitable. However, the end result of such conflict is too frequently the harassment or eviction of families because of the kind of noise normally associated with children. During the Housing Roundtable, the Commission heard that, even where families are not threatened with eviction, harassment because of the normal noise associated with children can create a poisoned environment for these tenants. For example, families may feel obliged to be out of their apartments evenings and weekends, so as not to create friction with other tenants.

FRPO pointed out that there may be situations where the level of noise created by a family is exceptional:

It is not to overstate the case that noise can ruin the lives of neighbours. It is not reasonable to simply assume that in all situations ‘all parties can work cooperatively to resolve the issue’. There will be circumstances where it is best for a household that is creating an exceptional level of noise or disturbances to find an environment better suited to them.

Many consultees emphasized that it is important to keep in mind that children’s noise is not the same as other noise, and cannot be held to the same standard as, for example, a stereo being played too loud. There is a natural amount of noise associated with small children, and this is noise not subject to control, to the same degree. There must be reasonable parenting; however, there must also be a recognition that children “have a right to run”.

[I]n complying with the Code, housing providers must be mindful that a certain amount of noise is to be expected from families with young children. With this, they should not necessarily hold families with young children to the same standard they would hold other households, such as a couple without children – in many cases, families with children will make more noise. As long as the parents are making reasonable attempts to minimize disturbances, the housing provider should not target or threaten to evict the family over noise.
CERA

There was also discussion at the Housing Roundtable about the connection between the treatment of families in the rental housing market and the general intolerance in society for families and children, with the perception that the general intolerance for children feeds into the noise-related complaints from tenants.

The Rental Housing Tribunal often deals with issues related to noise. MMAH told the Commission that the ORHT can refuse an application for eviction where the reason given is that children occupy the rental unit, provided that the occupation of children does not constitute overcrowding. However, the Commission heard that adjudicators on the OHRT have limited knowledge or experience with applying the Code, so that decisions by that Tribunal are not necessarily in harmony with the Code.

Many suggested that, where children’s noise becomes an issue, landlords should take active steps to resolve the issue, whether through mediating between tenants, moving the complaining tenant to another available unit, or providing soundproofing, where it is possible to do so without undue hardship. Landlords, CERA emphasized, should take action where other tenants are harassing families over reasonable children’s noise, just as they would if tenants were being harassed in relation to other Code grounds. On the other hand, the Commission heard from landlord organizations that landlords may find themselves in a difficult situation in these circumstances, and don’t necessarily have the mediation skills to solve it. For example, a tenant complaining about noise may threaten to seek a rent abatement as a result. FMTA said:

We encourage families with children to try to find solutions to the situation with their landlords and neighbours to find certain noise reduction solutions such as soundproofing, carpeting, or relocation in the building. While the FMTA recognizes that noise can interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of tenants in a multi-residential situation … It is our position that evictions should absolutely not be a method of controlling noise.

On the issue of soundproofing, ONPHA said:

In principle, this is a potential, probably partial solution. However, in many cases, it is physically impossible to retrofit housing to achieve effective soundproofing. Even where it is physically possible, the cost of soundproofing would be beyond the means of most social housing providers if applied on a widespread scale… There is a tension here between legal approaches which might tend to address the concerns of one individual, on the one hand, and concerns of housing providers to use their limited funds in the way that’s best for tenants in general.

Under the Code, landlords have a duty to ensure that the housing they provide is designed to be inclusive of persons identified by Code grounds (including family status), and to take steps to remove any barriers that may exist, unless to do so would cause undue hardship. Costs will amount to undue hardship if they are quantifiable, shown to be related to the accommodation, and so substantial that they would alter the essential nature of the enterprise or so significant that they would substantially affect its viability.

SEE ALSO:

Addressing Canada’s Lack of Affordable Housing

Share this: