Promoting Human Rights Archives

May 16, 2011

Fundamental Disability Rights Case Goes to Supreme Court of Canada

On May Tuesday May 17th the Supreme Court of Canada will be asked to consider whether people with intellectual disabilities should be allowed to testify in court. Specifically, the question before the Court is whether people with intellectual disabilities are required to demonstrate an understanding of the concept of a “promise to tell the truth” in order to be permitted to testify. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) has been granted intervener status in this case. Read more.

March 8, 2011

Factum in the Mowat Case

This case involves a woman, Ms. Donna Mowat, who filed a human rights complaint after she experienced sexual harassment at work. According to the Federal Court of Appeal, Ms. Mowat, whose sexual harassment complaint was largely successful, was entitled to only $4000 in compensation, although her legal fees to bring her complaint forward were nearly $200,000.

In this appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to decide if those who experience discrimination should be reimbursed for their legal costs relating to filing human rights complaints. The legal fees to file complaints and to have them heard by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can be more than what is awarded as compensation to successful complainants. As a result of this, even when victims of discrimination win their cases, they are very often out of pocket several thousands of dollars.

The CCD argued that the human rights legislation must be accessible to people who experience discrimination. This is particularly important for people with disabilities who represent the largest proportion of complainants before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Read more.

October 13, 2009

An Open Letter to Members of Parliament

July 27, 2009

CCD Factum in the Moore Case

CCD intervened in the Moore case because the case is about ensuring the legal duty to accommodate persons with disabilities is interpreted in a manner that serves its remedial purposes. Specifically, CCD intervened in the appeal because of a concern that the comparator group analysis adopted by the learned Chambers Judge has the potential to undermine the rights of all persons with disabilities to accommodation in a variety of settings. CCD respectfully submitted that the Court erred in determining that to establish discrimination, a student with disability, seeking accommodation in public education, needed to demonstrate differential treatment of students with disabilities in special education. CCD argued that remedial purpose of the duty to accommodate means there is a constant comparison inherent in the duty to accommodate. The comparison is between persons with and without disabilities. Read more.

September 8, 2008

A Disability Rights Analysis of Canada's Record Regarding the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Submission by CCD to the Human Rights Council in Relation to the 2009 Periodic Review of Canada

As an organization with unique expertise regarding the conditions that are necessary for people with disabilities to have full enjoyment of their human rights, CCD shared with the UN Human Rights Council its analysis of Canada's human rights record as it pertains to persons with disabilities. Read more.

November 1, 2007

The Canadian Human Rights Commission Strives to Design a New Business Model: What Does This Mean for Persons with Disabilities?

This paper provides an assessment of the new business model currently being used by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to manage human rights complaints and to promote human rights in Canada. It outlines the nature of the changes brought about by the new business model and considers the effectiveness of these changes in protecting and promoting the human rights of persons with disabilities. The report concludes with recommendations. Read more.

April 28, 2004

Newfoundland and Labrador Case Factum

April 1, 2004

Integrated Case Factum

January 26, 2004

Twenty Years of Litigating for Disability Equality Rights: Has it Made a Difference?

This paper traces the evolution of disability equality rights; from demanding recognition and inclusion in human rights law, to becoming experienced litigatiors for a substantive vision of equality in Canada. Read more.

September 20, 2001

Brockie Case Factum

September 20, 2001

Candian Council of Churches Case Factum

February 14, 2001

Chesters Case Factum

November 22, 1999

Lovelace Case Factum

August 1, 1999

Granovsky Case Factum

July 29, 1999

Grismer Case Factum

February 9, 1998

Orillia Case Factum

March 24, 1997

Eldridge Case Factum

October 9, 1996

Disability Groups Bitter About Supreme Court Decision

October 8, 1996

Groups Seek "No" to Segregation of Disabled School-Children

June 8, 1996

Eaton Factum

January 1, 1996

Gibbs Case Factum

January 1, 1993

Thwaites Case Factum

January 1, 1993

Affidavit of Francine Arsenault

May 25, 1987

Andrews Case Factum

January 1, 1984

Bhinder Case Factum