Mills v. Bell Mobility Inc.

Mills v. Bell Mobility Inc.

Complainant established a prima facie discrimination: Bell's in-person visual-ID requirement prevented substantively equal access to same-day postpaid activation for a disabled, homebound person. Bell failed the third Grismer/undue hardship limb because it produced no evidence it assessed or attempted reasonable accommodations or the costs/risks of alternatives; accordingly bona fide justification not established and the complaint is substantiated, requiring remedial orders and compensation.

Citation
2017 CHRT 1
Parties
Complainant: Linda Mills; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Bell Mobility Inc.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Final Decision After Inquiry Hearing
Outcome
Complaint substantiated against Bell Mobility Inc.; remedial orders issued and monetary compensation awarded for pain and suffering plus interest; no punitive/special compensation ordered under s.53(3)
Legal Topics
Service Accommodation, Bona Fide Justification, Undue Hardship, Same Day Activation, Identity Fraud Prevention, Compensation for Pain and Suffering
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Disability Law Administrative Law Telecommunications Regulation Service Accommodation Bona Fide Justification Undue Hardship Same Day Activation +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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Mills

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Bell Mobility Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Final Decision After Inquiry Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination under s.5 of the Act
  2. 2 Whether respondent established a bona fide justification/undue hardship under s.15(1)(g) and s.15(2)
  3. 3 What remedies and compensation are appropriate if discrimination is established

Ratio Decidendi

Complainant established a prima facie discrimination: Bell's in-person visual-ID requirement prevented substantively equal access to same-day postpaid activation for a disabled, homebound person. Bell failed the third Grismer/undue hardship limb because it produced no evidence it assessed or attempted reasonable accommodations or the costs/risks of alternatives; accordingly bona fide justification not established and the complaint is substantiated, requiring remedial orders and compensation.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated against Bell Mobility Inc.; remedial orders issued and monetary compensation awarded for pain and suffering plus interest; no punitive/special compensation ordered under s.53(3)

Orders

  • Within six months Bell must modify its Retail Activation Standards, in consultation with the Commission, to ensure substantively equal access for disabled customers to postpaid same-day activation and submit modified standards for Tribunal approval (tribunal retains jurisdiction)
  • Within one year Bell must train employees involved in application and development of Retail Activation Standards on the Act, purpose of the modifications and accommodation obligations