Hughes v. Elections Canada

Hughes v. Elections Canada

Elections Canada engaged in a discriminatory practice under section 5 of the CHRA by failing to provide barrier‑free access and by inadequately investigating and responding to complaints; the Tribunal awarded $10,000 for pain and suffering and ordered systemic reforms (verification procedures, consultation with disability groups, training, signage, lease terms, complaints process and reporting) because these measures are necessary and proportionate to prevent recurrence.

Citation
2010 CHRT 4
Parties
Complainant: James Peter Hughes; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Elections Canada; Interested Party: Council of Canadians with Disabilities
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Decision on Merits
Outcome
Complaint substantiated; Elections Canada found to have engaged in discriminatory practice under section 5 of the CHRA
Legal Topics
Accessibility, Duty to Accommodate, Reasonable Accommodation, Remedies, Investigation Procedures, Discrimination in Services
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Election Law Disability Law Accessibility Duty to Accommodate Reasonable Accommodation Remedies +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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Peter Hughes

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Elections Canada

Respondent

Council of Canadians with Disabilities

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Elections Canada violated subsections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act by denying barrier-free access and adversely differentiating against a voter with a disability
  2. 2 Whether Elections Canada failed to properly investigate and respond to verbal and written complaints about accessibility
  3. 3 What remedies, including compensatory and systemic orders, are appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Elections Canada engaged in a discriminatory practice under section 5 of the CHRA by failing to provide barrier‑free access and by inadequately investigating and responding to complaints; the Tribunal awarded $10,000 for pain and suffering and ordered systemic reforms (verification procedures, consultation with disability groups, training, signage, lease terms, complaints process and reporting) because these measures are necessary and proportionate to prevent recurrence.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated; Elections Canada found to have engaged in discriminatory practice under section 5 of the CHRA

Orders

  • Pay $10,000 to Mr. Hughes for pain and suffering plus interest
  • Commission to monitor implementation; EC to consult with Commission, Complainant and CCD and pay reasonable participation expenses (not legal fees)