Our lives are different. In Canada, for example, more than 40 million people live in a mixture of urban and rural environments. People live here from every corner of the planet—some whose families have been here for thousands of years, and others who arrived today. We have wealthy people and those experiencing homelessness, and everything in between. We have young and old, people of every demographic imaginable. Yet through all of this diversity, it is still possible to narrow the scope of our shared interactions with people and organizations.
We can break those interactions into groups by how they show up in our lives.
Essential public systems, where our interactions are unavoidable: government organizations like Service Ontario, municipal offices and city halls, the Canada Revenue Agency, Service Canada, courts and law enforcement agencies, and schools and school boards. We can’t opt out of involvement with these organizations, but we can still have expectations of service and treatment.
Organizations connected to health, care, and vulnerability. When we interact with these systems, resources are often scarce and we are frequently anxious, unwell, or afraid for ourselves or those we care about. The potential power imbalance is high, with serious consequences. This includes family doctors and clinics, dentists, hospitals and long-term care facilities, pharmacies, and mental health providers. Despite all the barriers, especially in Canada, it is still reasonable to expect certain standards of care and treatment.
Interactions that affect work, income, and security. Many of us spend more time working than doing anything else. These interactions include potential employers, recruiters, human resource personnel, banks and financial institutions, insurance companies, and social assistance organizations. The decisions made here affect our stability, dignity, and future opportunities.
Housing and transportation connections. Our experience of basic human values can vary greatly through interactions with landlords and property managers, car dealerships, auto repair and service garages, public transit systems, licensing and road services, home repair trades, and even fuel providers. These relationships affect the core of where and how we live and move.
Daily interactions for shopping and services. Think about your last experience with a grocery store or big-box retailer. How was your visit to a hardware store, a local restaurant, or your internet or phone provider? These interactions are often high frequency, involve significant costs, and can carry cumulative emotional and financial impact.
Other interactions. These include community organizations such as libraries, the post office, charities, community groups, and recreational events. While they may seem less critical, whether expectations are met in these spaces can influence whether we feel connected, or invisible.
The Humanity Standard (Applies to Every Category)
Across all interactions, we are not asking for special treatment. We are entitled to and should expect six baseline conditions to be met every time.
1. Clarity: We expect to be told what is happening, what costs we can realistically expect, and for that information to be accurate. We expect to understand what is expected of us and what we can expect in return. It should be a given that we are treated with respect, regardless of history, demographics, or ability; that we are listened to; and that our patronage or participation is valued, not taken for granted.
Example: When we take a car in for repairs, a reasonable expectation is that the shop explains the problem in plain language, outlines realistic costs, and offers clear options. We should be able to ask questions without pressure and make decisions without fear of hidden surprises.
2. Respect for our time: When we have an appointment, whether with a doctor, business, or government organization, we expect a reasonable waiting period. Our time is valuable, and when waits stretch into hours rather than minutes, that should be recognized as unreasonable.
If delays are unexpected, we expect to be informed and offered alternatives. If delays are systemic, there should be a way to escalate concerns to people who can make a difference, especially when the issue is political. Across all sectors, organizations should make every reasonable effort to keep their processes as efficient as possible.
Example: If we make an appointment with a dentist, doctor, business, or government office, it is reasonable to expect to be seen within a short window of the scheduled time. When waits stretch far beyond that, we should be informed, offered alternatives, or given a way to raise concerns. Is it unreasonable to expect that our time be treated as valuable?
3. Basic human regard: Our society in Canada, and many others, speaks openly about diversity, equity, and inclusion. We know the injustices of the past, and we know how myths, misconceptions, bias, and incorrect knowledge persist. Moving forward, we expect people, organizations, and governments to actively avoid perpetuating old or new harms.
At a minimum, we expect acknowledgement of our value, a neutral or kind tone in our interactions, and an absence of condescension.
Example: When a person who uses a wheelchair attends an interview, it is reasonable to expect that the focus remains on their skills and experience. They should not have to worry about accessibility or whether assumptions will overshadow their qualifications.
4. Competence with humility: It is not unreasonable to expect the people and organizations delivering goods and services to understand their work, to explain things clearly when we don’t, and to admit limits or mistakes when they occur.
Example: We should be able to trust that advertised prices are accurate, that a sale is real, and that key details about delivery, timelines, or obligations are disclosed clearly. When mistakes happen, it is reasonable to expect honesty and accountability rather than deflection or fine print. We do not expect perfection; we do expect transparency.
5. Fairness: Rules, whether societal or organizational, should be consistent, transparent, and not punitive when we don’t understand them. If diversity, equity, and inclusion policies mean anything, then every person, regardless of who they are or where they live, should be treated fairly and without bias or discrimination.
Example: In a society as diverse as ours, many rules and expectations are unspoken and culturally specific. When people unfamiliar with those norms interact with institutions or services, it is reasonable to expect patience, explanation, and fairness rather than judgment or penalty.
6. Consequences and accountability when things go wrong: Mistakes happen. When they do, we expect ownership and responsibility. We expect acknowledgement, accountability to repair or mitigate harm, and sincere efforts to make things right.
Apologizing without understanding impact is not sufficient. Hiding behind policy is not sufficient. Listening, acknowledging, offering solutions, and acting in a timely way is what accountability looks like.
Example: When a sales organization makes a mistake, it is reasonable to expect the organization to acknowledge it, take responsibility, and work toward a fair resolution. Hiding behind policy rather than addressing harm does not build trust or accountability.
Power shouldn’t diminish the individual
Shallow or flat organizational structures built on accountability, consequence, and service help empower clients and customers. Too few organizations appreciate this. Larger and more powerful organizations often place profit and cost above people, clients and staff alike.
The more power an organization holds over health, housing, income, mobility, legal standing, or community access, the greater its responsibility to treat people with care. We are not numbers or lines on a balance sheet. We are people seeking help, not disposable concerns. Efficiency does not excuse indifference. Policy does not excuse harm. Burnout does not erase impact.
Example: Organizations that hold monopoly power or control essential services often come to expect gratitude rather than accountability. History shows that organizations thrive not by minimizing people, but by recognizing that trust and respect are what sustain them.
Why expectations, and the gaps between them, matter
When these standards are absent, trust erodes. Conflict escalates. People disengage or comply resentfully. Front-line workers absorb anger meant for systems.
When these standards are present, interactions shorten rather than lengthen. Mistakes are acknowledged and more easily forgiven. Relationships form quietly through mutual regard, loyalty grows without coercion, and stress diminishes on all sides.
These are not relationships built on softness. They are relationships built on functional humanity.
So when we step back and look at our interactions, across government, healthcare, commerce, employment, and community, we might ask: is it unreasonable to expect clarity, respect, fairness, and accountability? Or have we grown accustomed to accepting less than we should?
Most of us are not asking to be impressed. We are asking to be treated as though our time, health, and dignity matter. Think of this the next time you are waiting with a sick child in a doctor’s office, sitting on hold with a government office, or leaving a service garage unsure whether the price you paid, and the explanation you received, were fair.
In a world as interconnected as ours, these situations will always exist. What remains within our control is whether, in those moments, we remember that systems are made of people, and people deserve to be treated as such.
Thank you,
Paul