Litigating to Advance the Substantive Equality Rights of People with Disabilities
Author | Gwen Brodsky, Shelagh Day, and Yvonne Peters |
Profession | Director of the Poverty and Human Rights Centre/Chair of the Human Rights Committee, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA)/Chairperson, Board of Commissioners, Manitoba Human Rights Commission |
Pages | 223-251 |
► 223
►►►►
chapter 7
LITIGATING TO ADVANCE
THE SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY RIGHTS OF
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
Gwen Brodsky,* shelaGh day,† and yVonne peters‡
A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter analyzes the legal landscape for litigating the substantive
equality rights of people with disabilities in Canada since the two land-
mark human rig hts decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, Meiorin a nd
Grismer.1
* Gwen Brodsky, Director of t he Poverty and Human R ights Centre; Distin guished
Visiting Schol ar, Faculty of Law, University of Br itish Columbia and Resea rch
Partner in t he SSHRC-CURA Proj ect “Reconceiving Huma n Rights Practice ,” online:
www.socialrightscura.ca.
† Shelagh Day, Chai r of the Human Rights Com mittee, Canad ian Feminist Al liance
for Internation al Action (FAFIA); Di rector of the Poverty and Hu man Rights Centre
and Research Pa rtner in the SSHRC-C URA Project “Reconcei ving Human Right s
Practice,” online: www.socialrightscura.ca.
‡ Yvonne Peters, Chair person, Board of Commi ssioners, Manitoba Hum an Rights
Commission; Co -Principal Invest igator for the SSHRC-CUR A Project “Disabli ng Pov-
erty/Enabl ing Citizenship” and Res earch Collaborator in t he SSHRC-CURA Proj ect
“Reconceiving Hu man Rights Prac tice,” online: www.soc ialrightscu ra.ca.
1 A n earlier version of this ch apter — “Accommodation in the 21st Cent ury” (March
2012), online: Can adian Human R ights Commission ww w.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca — was
referred to by severa l interveners in the appea l in the Supreme Court of Ca nada of
British Columbia (Minist ry of Education) v Moore, 2010 BCCA 478, aff ’g 2008 BCSC 264,
leave to appeal to SCC g ranted, 34040 (30 June 2011) [Moore BCCA]. It wa s cited with
approval by the Cour t in its decision in Moore v Br itish Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC
224► gwen brodsky, shelagh day, and yvonne peters
Together, Meiorin and Grismer offered the promise that human rights
legislation would take adverse effects discrimination seriously and that
the duty to accommodate would engage with systemic obstacles to equal-
ity. However, this promise has been under attack. Post-Meiorin and Grismer
caselaw reveals dist urbing trends. Efforts have been made to return us to a
minimalist version of accommodation, by narrowing the definition of dis-
crimination and returning to an emphasis on stereotype, applying formal-
istic versions of comparator group analysis that defeat legitimate claims
and distort accommodation analysis, and adopting too narrow definitions
of services.
Respondent push back has created new knots in the jurisprudence,
which the authors describe and attempt to untangle. The Supreme Court of
Canada had a n opportunity when it heard the appeal in Moore v British Col-
umbia (Ministry of Education) to renew its recognition that the ful fillment of
the rights of persons with d isabilities requires far-reaching, deliberate, and
systemic change to workplaces and services.2 In the twenty-first century,
especially in light of Canada’s recent ratification of the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adjudicators and governments should be
striving to move us, with all speed, towards the goal of full inclusion. In
Moore, the Supreme Court of Canada took some important steps towards
untangling the jurisprudence and provided some much-needed direction
for achievi ng full inclus ion.3
2 At issue in Mo ore SCC, ibid, is a claim th at the BC Ministr y of Education and North
Vancouver School Distr ict No 44 discri minated again st Jeffrey Patrick Moore and
other students w ith severe learning d isabilities by fai ling to accommodate thei r needs
in the public school s ystem. While at elementa ry school, Jeffrey Moore w as diagnosed
as having a se vere learning disa bility, in the form of dyslexia , which interfered with
his abilit y to learn to read and to comprehend word s. In the wake of fund ing cuts
by the province for educa tion, the school board closed t he facility that prov ided
the intensive remed iation required by Jeffre y and other students with dy slexia. On
the advice of dis trict ocials, Je ffrey’s parents removed him f rom the public school
system and, at sig nificant persona l expense, sent him to pr ivate schools that provide
special a ssistance to student s with severe learni ng disabilities. T he Moores alleged
that the min istry and the d istrict discr iminated agai nst Jeffrey Moore indiv idually
and that they a lso discrim inated on a systemic bas is against student s with severe
learning d isabilities. T he claim was successf ul before the BC Human R ights Tribunal,
2005 BCHRT 580. But the wel l-reasoned judgment of the tr ibunal was overt urned
on judicial rev iew, based on the BC Supreme Court’s compa rator group analysis a nd
approach to definin g the service in issue . On further appea l, a majority of the Brit ish
Columbia Court of A ppeal also ru led against the compla inant. Justice Row les dissented.
3 Moore SCC , above note 1.
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
