Ledoux v. Gambler First Nation

Ledoux v. Gambler First Nation

The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that (1) the cessation of homecare, the timing/quality of the ramp and the water tank replacement were not discriminatory given eligibility rules, funding constraints and routine maintenance, but (2) the Respondent denied the Complainant occupancy of his residence in a manner where his disability was a factor contrary to s.6 CHRA, and (3) the March 16, 2016 memo constituted retaliation contrary to s.14.1 CHRA; remedies and compensation were ordered accordingly.

Citation
2018 CHRT 26
Parties
Complainant: Gordon Ledoux; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Gambler First Nation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Decision on Merits Following Hearing
Outcome
Partially in favour of Complainant: discrimination found under s.6 (denial of occupancy) and retaliation found under s.14.1; other discrimination claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Retaliation, Accommodation, Housing, Remedies
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Disability Law Indigenous Law Discrimination Retaliation Accommodation Housing +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Ledoux

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Gambler First Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Decision on Merits Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ceasing $200/month homecare payments constituted discrimination under s.5 CHRA
  2. 2 Whether delay/quality of wheelchair ramp constituted discrimination under s.6 CHRA
  3. 3 Whether failure to repair/replace water tank constituted discrimination under s.5 CHRA

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that (1) the cessation of homecare, the timing/quality of the ramp and the water tank replacement were not discriminatory given eligibility rules, funding constraints and routine maintenance, but (2) the Respondent denied the Complainant occupancy of his residence in a manner where his disability was a factor contrary to s.6 CHRA, and (3) the March 16, 2016 memo constituted retaliation contrary to s.14.1 CHRA; remedies and compensation were ordered accordingly.

Court Disposition

Partially in favour of Complainant: discrimination found under s.6 (denial of occupancy) and retaliation found under s.14.1; other discrimination claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Award $5,000 CAD for pain and suffering for denial of occupancy (paragraph 53(2)(d))
  • Award $2,500 CAD additional compensation for reckless conduct related to denial of occupancy