Summary#

Bill 86, Our London Family Act (Working Together to Combat Islamophobia and Hatred), 2022, would amend seven Ontario laws and create two new Acts. Its stated goal is to combat Islamophobia and hatred; that is a purpose, not a guaranteed result. The supplied materials do not say whether the bill passed or is in force.

• Ontario’s anti-racism strategy would have to include annual anti-racism training for frontline public-sector workers. The Minister would also have to survey Ontario residents annually and establish an advisory council of up to 30 members, with duties to advocate for racialized groups, advise government and report twice a year.
• The Education Act would require the Minister and school boards to create anti-racism strategies, and the Minister to maintain a separate anti-Islamophobia strategy. Boards would have to collect data, set up advisory committees and complaint processes, and provide anti-racism training to board members. Some required training and implementation resources depend on the Legislature appropriating money.
• The bill would extend the Human Rights Tribunal application deadline from one year to five years, with additional grounds for accepting late applications.
• The Chief Electoral Officer could deregister a political party if, in the officer’s opinion, it engages in conduct that would constitute either of two specified hate offences under the Criminal Code. A person could appeal that decision to the Superior Court of Justice.
• The bill would let the Speaker bar demonstrations or other activities in the legislative precinct if, in the Speaker’s opinion, they are likely to promote hatred. It would also prohibit specified acts of intimidation within 50 metres of a religious institution, with a fine of up to $25,000 and the possibility of a court injunction.
• The bill would require a review of hate crimes and hate-motivated incidents and a public report within one year. It would also require transparent, bias-free and barrier-free public appointment practices, and proactive outreach to systemically disadvantaged groups.

What it means for you#

• Students, families and school staff: School boards would have to create a clear process for complaints about discrimination, racism or bigotry, including Islamophobia, antisemitism, anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Black racism and anti-Asian racism. The process must explain how complaints are handled at first and if escalated, and how reprisals are addressed. The bill does not set out individual complaint timelines or appeal rights.
• Teachers, education workers and school boards: Boards would have to gather qualitative and quantitative data about racialized people’s experiences in schools, develop strategies and establish advisory committees. Board members would have to successfully complete anti-racism training at least once per term.
• People applying to the Human Rights Tribunal: The usual application deadline would become five years. The Tribunal could also accept an application after that limit if it finds the delay was in good faith with no substantial prejudice to anyone affected, or circumstances reasonably prevented an earlier application.
• People near religious institutions: The bill would make specified intimidating conduct within 50 metres an offence. It expressly says peaceful protests—including critiques of religion or religious officials—are not prevented.
• Political parties and groups seeking public appointments: A party could face deregistration under the new test, subject to an appeal. The Public Appointments Secretariat would have to make appointment opportunities broadly available and proactively solicit applications from systemically disadvantaged groups.
• Taxpayers and public agencies: The bill would add duties for ministers, school boards and public bodies. It does not directly create a new independent agency: the anti-racism council would be established by law, while the appointments work would be assigned to the existing Public Appointments Secretariat.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill requires surveys, training, school-board data collection, strategies, committees, consultations and public reporting, but gives no cost estimates or staffing numbers.
• The Minister must include resources for anti-Islamophobia training and implementation in the strategy, but those requirements do not apply unless the Legislature appropriates money for them.
• The Lieutenant Governor in Council may determine remuneration and expenses for council members. No amounts are stated.
• No fees, costs to businesses, or funding source for the other new duties is specified.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include the parent Acts, so I could not verify how these changes compare with current law or how they interact with existing processes.
• The bill does not explain how the annual resident surveys would be funded, who would conduct them, or how their results would be used.
• It does not set detailed rules for school-board complaint investigations, timelines, outcomes or appeals. The scope of required data collection is also not fully specified.
• The safe-zone Act does not define “act of intimidation” in the supplied text, though it lists examples. How the 50-metre boundary would be measured is not stated.
• The bill does not give details about how the Chief Electoral Officer would assess the conduct test, beyond the officer’s opinion and the right to appeal.
• The supplied material does not state the bill’s passage status. Most schedules would start on Royal Assent; the Anti-Racism Act changes would start six months later.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to address racism and hatred through several routes: training, school strategies and complaint processes, longer access to the Human Rights Tribunal, and review of how hate incidents are handled.
• Requiring school data and public strategies could help identify problems and make government and school boards explain their response.
• A five-year application deadline could give people more time to bring a human-rights complaint.
• The safe-zone provisions include a stated protection for peaceful protest, while allowing action against specified intimidating conduct near religious institutions.

Case against#

• The bill creates many duties but leaves important operating details and costs unstated. Without money, staffing and clear procedures, some requirements may be difficult to carry out.
• The Speaker’s ability to bar an activity depends on the Speaker’s opinion that it is likely to promote hatred. The bill does not set out a separate review or appeal process for that decision.
• The Chief Electoral Officer’s new power could have major consequences for a political party, while the bill does not detail how the officer should assess the conduct test.
• Extending the time for human-rights applications could make it harder for people affected by a complaint to respond to older claims; the bill does not explain how the Tribunal would handle that practical challenge.