About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

11 Hum. Rts. Dig. 1 (2010)

handle is hein.journals/hurtsdg11 and id is 1 raw text is: VOLUME 11 NUMBER 1 Human Rights Digest January 2010 Decisions Noted School Board Discriminates Against Disabled Students ............. 1 No Pay Equity in Saskatchewan ..... 4 Strata Council Discriminates Based on D isability ................. 4 Mentally Ill Man Stereotyped As D angerous................... 5 Landlord Stereotypes Tenants as AIDS-Infected Faggots ....... 6 Disabled Person Should Not Bear Cost of Accommodation ........ 7 Tribunal Refuses to Dismiss C om plaint ................... 7 Mandatory Retirement Complaint Should Proceed ............... 8 Termination Not Due to Criminal R eco rd ... . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .9 Canada Safeway Pays for Family Status Discrimination .......... 10 Natural Health Products Store Discriminates Based on D isability ................... 10 Inside Page ................. 2 Briefly Noted ...............11 Ordering ...................12 EDUCATION - school board discrimi- nates on the basis of disability - disabled student denied school integration - eval- uation procedures discriminatory for dis- abled student - DISABILITY - discrimi- natory treatment in the provision of services on the basis of Down syndrome and mental handicap - SYSTEMIC DIS- CRIMINATION - pattern of conduct dis- criminatory on the basis of disability REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION - DISCRIMINATION - duty to accommo- date short of undue hardship - Meiorin/ Grismer test for reasonable accommoda- tion - BURDEN OF PROOF - elements ofa prima facie case - REMEDIES-inte- gration of disabled student into school sys- tem - DAMAGES - general damages - injury to dignity and self-respect The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal found that the Commission scolaire des Phares discriminated against Jeannette Pelletier, Robert Potvin, and their son, Joel Potvin, by failing to respect Joel's right to public education without discrimination on the basis of his intellectual disability. In 2006, the Court of Appeal ruled (CHRR Doc. 06-916) that Joel had been discriminated against by the respondent when it placed him in a special class. The Court found that, as a result of amend- ments to the Education Act and changes to the Ministry's policies, the classification process required the respondent to first consider placing Joel in a regular class set- ting. The Tribunal found that Joel's classifica- tion in a special class for the school years following the Court of Appeal's decision was still discriminatory, as the respondent did not consider any individual accommo- dation measures which would favour Joel's integration in a regular class. The Tribunal found that adapted ser- vices in specialized classes resulted in sys- temic discrimination towards pupils with intellectual disabilities. Training and sup- port given by the respondent to its teachers and personnel in connection with adaptive services and prioritizing integration into or- dinary classes were deficient. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that all the steps un- dertaken, as well as plans adopted after the Court of Appeal's judgment, did not take into account accommodation measures which needed to be considered prior to classification. The classification system was based not on the child's best interest, but rather on the fact that the ordinary class was not equipped to receive them. The re- spondent had the obligation to accommo- date children by adapting the regular class setting, even if it was easier to merely re- group services in a specialized class. The Tribunal found that Joel was as- signed to a specialized class on the basis that he could not understand the abstract concepts taught in the regular class and be- cause he had language difficulties. How- ever, these factors are a result of his handi- cap and should not justify exclusion from the regular class. The respondent was re- quired to consider means of accommo- dation, modify learning methods and re- consider norms of success. The process of evaluation and classification used did not allow for adaptation measures to be put into place prior to deciding Joel's classifica- tion, which could have favoured his inte- gration into a regular class. Only if integration constituted an undue hardship or gravely prejudiced other pupils' rights can a school board refuse to inte- grate a pupil into a regular class. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Joel Potvin $22,500, and his parents, Jeannette Pelletier and Robert Potvin, $22,500 for moral damages. continued on page 3

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most