Zoning Out Discrimination: Working Towards Housing Equality in Ontario
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ontario, it is the role of local government to ensure that housing is accessible and to eliminate barriers to housing. This paper examines how the Ontario Human Rights Code can be employed to challenge municipal zoning bylaws regulating permitted land-uses, namely by establishing that certain bylaws adversely affect individuals protected under the Code by restricting where those individuals may live. While Ontario litigants have been relatively successful in using the Code to challenge direct and indirect discrimination in housing, the case of zoning bylaws reveals key limitations to achieving housing equality through human rights legislation. This paper compares the relative success of legal challenges to bylaws regulating group homes that house people with disabilities to bylaws regulating rooming houses that house people who cannot afford other housing. This comparison reveals the difficulty of challenging discrimination faced by a diffuse group of individuals falling within multiple prohibited grounds (residents of rooming houses), rather than a discrete group that falls under a single identifiable ground (residents of group homes). It also reveals the challenges of confronting discrimination when procedural inequalities are entrenched in municipal decision-making processes. It concludes that the larger challenge for housing and human rights advocates, in addition to eliminating discriminatory bylaws, is to confront systemic discrimination in housing policy and practice. In this task, litigation is a valuable tool but only part of the solution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it