N/A

A discussion of damages at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. A policy argument that current conventional damages are too low to effectively accomplish the Codes objectives. A good explanation of how damages are determined. Contrasts the damages consequences of perusing a claim iat the Tribunal vs. Court.

Discusses a recent case were the Court held extension of an employee’s long term disability benefits was sufficient for the employer to conclude there was no reasonable likelihood that the employee would return to work in the foreseeable future, thus concluding the contract was frustrated as the employee could no longer perform its employment responsibilities due to the unforeseen situation. 

Court held that employer only had to show that there is “enough evidence” to conclude there is no reasonable likelihood of the employee returning in a reasonable period, instead of the previous standard required evidence of permanent disability and the employer was not required to make further inquiries but could rely on the documentation it had received to conclude the employment contract was frustrated.

Argues that the decision in Tranchemontagne to import a substantive test at the prima facia stage, into human rights tribunal cases, shifts the burden onto the claimant to prove that the rule was substantively discriminatory and is inconsistent with previous Supreme Court of Canada decisions. 

An empirical study of the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of the Charter of Rights in disability related cases. The study tracks the evolution of the concept of disability discrimination and the the use and evolution of different models of disability.