Summary#

Bill 89, Protecting Ontario’s Religious Diversity Act, 2022, would amend Ontario’s Human Rights Code; it does not create a new law or organization. Its stated goal is to address religious expression in the Code’s equal-treatment protections. The bill would take effect on Royal Assent.

• It would add “religious expression” alongside “creed” in the Code’s protections for services, goods and facilities; accommodation; contracts; employment; and membership in unions, trade or occupational associations, and self-governing professions.
• The change applies to the listed areas. The bill does not set out a new application, complaint or review process.
• It does not define “religious expression” or explain how it relates to “creed.”

What it means for you#

• People seeking services, housing, or contracts: The Code’s equal-treatment protections in these areas would expressly include religious expression.
• Workers and job applicants: The Code’s employment protections would expressly include religious expression.
• Union members and people in listed professions or associations: The membership protections would expressly include religious expression.
• Everyone: The bill does not itself guarantee a particular outcome in an individual case or explain how the new wording would apply. The Human Rights Code was not supplied, so existing exceptions and complaint processes could not be checked against current law.

Money#

No publicly available information on estimated public costs, savings, or compliance costs.

• The bill does not set out an appropriation, fee, fine, or staffing requirement.

What is unclear#

• What counts as “religious expression”; the bill does not define the term.
• How “religious expression” would relate to the existing ground of “creed.”
• How the new wording would interact with any exceptions or limits in the existing Code. The Code was not supplied, so those provisions could not be verified.
• Whether the amendment would change how existing complaints are assessed; the bill does not set out a process or guidance.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that naming religious expression directly could make the Code’s protection clearer in the areas it lists.
• Expressly including it across services, accommodation, contracts, employment and membership could address unequal treatment in more than one part of daily life.
• The bill adds wording to existing protections rather than creating a separate program or process.

Case against#

• The bill does not define “religious expression,” leaving its boundaries and relationship to “creed” unclear.
• It does not explain how the new wording would interact with existing exceptions or complaint processes.
• The text gives no cost estimate or details about how the amendment would be applied in practice.