Morten v. Air Canada

Morten v. Air Canada

Tribunal found a prima facie case of discrimination: Air Canada imposed a blanket attendant requirement tied to disability. The requirement failed the s.15(1)(g) bona fide justification test because it was overbroad and did not permit individualized assessment. Air Canada did not prove accommodation to the point of undue hardship. Remedy ordered was corrective rather than immediate entitlement to unaccompanied travel: Air Canada must cease the discriminatory practice, formalize and revise its attendant policy/tariff in consultation with the Commission and complainant within a set timeframe, permit an individualized assessment under the revised policy, and pay $10,000 for pain and...

Citation
2009 CHRT 3
Parties
Complainant: Eddy Morten; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Discrimination Complaint / Decision
Outcome
Complaint substantiated. Tribunal ordered remedial measures and monetary compensation but did not order immediate unaccompanied travel without first permitting individualized assessment under a revised policy.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Accommodation, Undue Hardship, Tariff and Terms of Carriage, Remedy Damages, Jurisdiction CTA Vs CHRT
Source Language
English
Human Rights Transportation Law Administrative Law Aviation Safety Disability Discrimination Accommodation Undue Hardship Tariff and Terms of Carriage +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eddy Morten

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Discrimination Complaint / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Air Canada engaged in discriminatory practice under s.5 CHRA by requiring deaf/blind passengers to travel with an attendant
  2. 2 Whether Air Canada established a bona fide justification under s.15(1)(g) CHRA for its blanket attendant requirement
  3. 3 Whether Air Canada met its burden to show accommodation to point of undue hardship under s.15(2) CHRA

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found a prima facie case of discrimination: Air Canada imposed a blanket attendant requirement tied to disability. The requirement failed the s.15(1)(g) bona fide justification test because it was overbroad and did not permit individualized assessment. Air Canada did not prove accommodation to the point of undue hardship. Remedy ordered was corrective rather than immediate entitlement to unaccompanied travel: Air Canada must cease the discriminatory practice, formalize and revise its attendant policy/tariff in consultation with the Commission and complainant within a set timeframe, permit an individualized assessment under the revised policy, and pay $10,000 for pain and...

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated. Tribunal ordered remedial measures and monetary compensation but did not order immediate unaccompanied travel without first permitting individualized assessment under a revised policy.

Orders

  • Cease applying the blanket policy that requires deaf/blind persons to travel with an attendant
  • Revise and formalize Air Canada's attendant travel policy and amend the tariff to reflect a single coherent attendant policy, in consultation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the complainant, within four months of the decision