Human Rights Archives
Human Rights
November 15, 2011
Factum in the D.A.I. Case
In the D.A. I. case, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to consider whether people with intellectual disabilities should be allowed to testify in court. Specifically, the question before the Court is whether people with intellectual disabilities are required to demonstrate an understanding of the concept of a “promise to tell the truth” in order to be permitted to testify. CCD was been granted intervener status in this case. CCD argued that courts should not impose a test to allow people with disabilities to testify that is not imposed on others. Courts should focus scrutiny on the testimony given by individuals not the individuals themselves. Read more.
May 27, 2010
Factum in the Caron Case
Fighting a case in court is costly and CCD learned this lesson during its litigating against VIA Rail in support of accessible passenger trains. The Caron case focuses on the court's power to award interim costs while a case is in progress rather than waiting until its conclusion. An interim award provides a litigant with some of the resources it needs to present its case to the court.
CCD, working in coalition with other organizations (LEAF, Charter Committee on Poverty and the Poverty and Human Rights Centre), is intervening in the Caron case. Read more.
Litigation
November 15, 2011
Factum in the D.A.I. Case
In the D.A. I. case, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to consider whether people with intellectual disabilities should be allowed to testify in court. Specifically, the question before the Court is whether people with intellectual disabilities are required to demonstrate an understanding of the concept of a “promise to tell the truth” in order to be permitted to testify. CCD was been granted intervener status in this case. CCD argued that courts should not impose a test to allow people with disabilities to testify that is not imposed on others. Courts should focus scrutiny on the testimony given by individuals not the individuals themselves. Read more.
March 8, 2011
Factum in the Mowat Case
This case involves a woman, Ms. Donna Mowat, who filed a human rights complaint after she experienced sexual harassment at work. According to the Federal Court of Appeal, Ms. Mowat, whose sexual harassment complaint was largely successful, was entitled to only $4000 in compensation, although her legal fees to bring her complaint forward were nearly $200,000.
In this appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to decide if those who experience discrimination should be reimbursed for their legal costs relating to filing human rights complaints. The legal fees to file complaints and to have them heard by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can be more than what is awarded as compensation to successful complainants. As a result of this, even when victims of discrimination win their cases, they are very often out of pocket several thousands of dollars.
The CCD argued that the human rights legislation must be accessible to people who experience discrimination. This is particularly important for people with disabilities who represent the largest proportion of complainants before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Read more.
December 10, 2010
Council of Canadians with Disabilities to Intervene at Supreme Court of Canada Hearing Regarding Access to Justice for Victims of Discrimination
The Council of Canadians with Disabilities, a national human rights organization, will be appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada in Mowat v. Canada (Attorney General), an appeal about access to justice for victims of discrimination. The CCD was granted leave to make written and oral arguments in this matter. Read more.
September 21, 2010
Report of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities Human Rights Committee's Litigation: 2009-2010
Since the spring of 2009, the CCD Human Rights Committee has been involved in four very important cases involving the interpretation of equality and persons with disabilities. This report provides a summary of the Committee's work regarding public interest litigation.
The factum (a legal brief that details the arguments put forward by CCD to the courts) for each case can be found on CCD's website.
Read more.
May 27, 2010
Factum in the Caron Case
Fighting a case in court is costly and CCD learned this lesson during its litigating against VIA Rail in support of accessible passenger trains. The Caron case focuses on the court's power to award interim costs while a case is in progress rather than waiting until its conclusion. An interim award provides a litigant with some of the resources it needs to present its case to the court.
CCD, working in coalition with other organizations (LEAF, Charter Committee on Poverty and the Poverty and Human Rights Centre), is intervening in the Caron case. Read more.
October 21, 2009
CCD Affidavit in the Hughes Case
Mr. Peter Hughes encountered barriers when he went to cast his ballot in a Canadian Federal election. As a result, he made a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission regarding the inaccessibility of his local polling station. Elections Canada is responsible for access at polling stations in Federal elections. This case is to be heard by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. CCD submitted an affidavit seeking recognition as an interested party in the case. CCD has an in-depth understanding of the barriers experienced by persons with disability in the context of voting. In its affidavit, CCD shares its perspective on the fundamental importance of voting and the impact on people with disabilities when they experience barriers that prevent them from voting on an equal basis as people without disabilities. Understanding these barriers is critical for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in order to interpret the duty to accommodate and the factors to be considered in assessing undue hardship. Read more.
Promoting Human Rights
May 16, 2011
Fundamental Disability Rights Case Goes to Supreme Court of Canada
On May Tuesday May 17th the Supreme Court of Canada will be asked to consider whether people with intellectual disabilities should be allowed to testify in court. Specifically, the question before the Court is whether people with intellectual disabilities are required to demonstrate an understanding of the concept of a “promise to tell the truth” in order to be permitted to testify. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) has been granted intervener status in this case. Read more.
March 8, 2011
Factum in the Mowat Case
This case involves a woman, Ms. Donna Mowat, who filed a human rights complaint after she experienced sexual harassment at work. According to the Federal Court of Appeal, Ms. Mowat, whose sexual harassment complaint was largely successful, was entitled to only $4000 in compensation, although her legal fees to bring her complaint forward were nearly $200,000.
In this appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to decide if those who experience discrimination should be reimbursed for their legal costs relating to filing human rights complaints. The legal fees to file complaints and to have them heard by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can be more than what is awarded as compensation to successful complainants. As a result of this, even when victims of discrimination win their cases, they are very often out of pocket several thousands of dollars.
The CCD argued that the human rights legislation must be accessible to people who experience discrimination. This is particularly important for people with disabilities who represent the largest proportion of complainants before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Read more.
October 13, 2009
An Open Letter to Members of Parliament
July 27, 2009
CCD Factum in the Moore Case
CCD intervened in the Moore case because the case is about ensuring the legal duty to accommodate persons with disabilities is interpreted in a manner that serves its remedial purposes. Specifically, CCD intervened in the appeal because of a concern that the comparator group analysis adopted by the learned Chambers Judge has the potential to undermine the rights of all persons with disabilities to accommodation in a variety of settings. CCD respectfully submitted that the Court erred in determining that to establish discrimination, a student with disability, seeking accommodation in public education, needed to demonstrate differential treatment of students with disabilities in special education. CCD argued that remedial purpose of the duty to accommodate means there is a constant comparison inherent in the duty to accommodate. The comparison is between persons with and without disabilities. Read more.
September 8, 2008
A Disability Rights Analysis of Canada's Record Regarding the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Submission by CCD to the Human Rights Council in Relation to the 2009 Periodic Review of Canada
As an organization with unique expertise regarding the conditions that are necessary for people with disabilities to have full enjoyment of their human rights, CCD shared with the UN Human Rights Council its analysis of Canada's human rights record as it pertains to persons with disabilities. Read more.
November 1, 2007
The Canadian Human Rights Commission Strives to Design a New Business Model: What Does This Mean for Persons with Disabilities?
This paper provides an assessment of the new business model currently being used by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to manage human rights complaints and to promote human rights in Canada. It outlines the nature of the changes brought about by the new business model and considers the effectiveness of these changes in protecting and promoting the human rights of persons with disabilities. The report concludes with recommendations. Read more.
Promoting Human Rights Archives
Ending of Life Ethics
November 17, 2011
CCD hopes court will rule no on killing
Legalized assisted suicide is a recipe for lethal abuse. Read more.
June 9, 2011
Video: Who Chooses? End of Life Decision-making and People with Disabilities
Manitobans with disabilities discuss their concerns about how end of life decision making occurs in their province. Read more.
June 29, 2010
Canadians with Disabilities: We Are Not Dead Yet
On 16 June 2010, two Canadians with disabilities, Rhonda Wiebe, Co-chair of CCD's Ending of Life Ethics Committee, and Jim Derksen, a Committee Member, appeared before the Ad Hoc Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care to present CCD's brief "Canadians with Disabilities: We Are Not Dead Yet". Read more.
June 16, 2010
Deadly Compassion
People with disabilities are not strangers to the fact that nondisabled people cannot imagine life with a disability. They tell us that they would rather be dead than living with a disability. This is because disability is equated with pain, suffering, and dependency. At times, this attitude translates into a deadly compassion, where it is seen as a kindness to help a person with a disability to die. As a result, people with disabilities are being harmed. Today, two Canadians with disabilities, Rhonda Wiebe and Jim Derksen, appear before the House of Commons Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care to explain how deadly compassion puts us in harms way and to suggest how to detoxify the medical care and public policy environment, as both are affected by this insidious stereotype. Read more.
June 15, 2010
Canadians with Disabilities--We Are Not Dead Yet*
"I would rather be dead than live with a disability," is a sentiment that people with disabilities, particularly those with severe disabilities, hear from people without disabilities. Such a comment rests on an incorrect assumption that the quality of life is poor when you have a disability. Incorrect assumptions about quality of life have the power to trigger responses that harm people with disabilities. If a simplistic approach is applied when developing end of life policy, the long term result will be systemic discrimination against people with disabilities who are seriously ill or at end of life.
In 1996, CCD passed a resolution stating "…The CCD opposes any government action to decriminalize assisted suicide because of the serious potential for abuse and the negative image of people with disabilities that would be produced if people with disabilities are killed with state sanction…" CCD explains the rationale for its opposition to legalized assisted suicide and shares recommendations focused on staunching the forces that cause Canadians to believe that assisted suicide is a necessary option.
Read more.
December 2, 2009
Letter to the Editor: Re: Locked in Patients Humanity for the Trapped (25 November 2009)
Misdiagnosis of “locked-in” patients as being in a vegetative state is one reason why doctors should not have exclusive control over end of life decision making: Like all human endeavors, the practice of medicine is affected by limitations in knowledge and cultural understanding of human behavior. Read more.
Jim Derksen views inaccessible York Street Steps in Ottawa. CCD intervened in the Brown Case, which challenged an inadequate accommodation developed for the Steps.
The Latimer Case
The Latimer case directly concerned the rights of persons with disabilities. Mr. Latimer's view was that a parent has the right to kill a child with a disability if that parent decides the child's quality of life no longer warrants its continuation. CCD explained to the court and to the public how that view threatens the lives of people with disabilities and is deeply offensive to fundamental constitutional values. Learn more.