About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

75 Can. B. Rev. 433 (1996)
The Duty to Accommodate: Who Will Benefit

handle is hein.journals/canbarev75 and id is 439 raw text is: 

                          WILL BENEFIT?

                     Shelagh Day* and Gwen Brodsky**

This article describes the development of the duty to accommodate in Canadian
jurisprudence, attempts to untangle to doctrinal knots associated with it, and
considers the conceptual weaknesses inherent in the idea.
    Although much has happened in human rights jurisprudence in the last twenty
years, the concept of accommodation is not yet fully developed. So far, the Supreme
Court of Canada has dealt with accommodation in religious and age discrimination
cases only. It is not clear whether the duty to accommodate will apply to other grounds,
such as disability, race, and sex similarly. Nor is it clear that it should. The authors
argue that the reasonable accommodation framework lacks the capacity to address
inequality and foster inclusive institutions. It is flawed by implicit acceptance that
social norms should be determined by more powerful groups with manageable
concessions being made to those who are different.
     The authors posit that accommodation jurisprudence can be rescued but only
ifadjudicators and courts reject a sameness/difference paradigm as inadequate
to address issues that in fact concern group-based inequalities in power.

Cet article ddcrit le diveloppement du devoir d'accommodement dans la
jurisprudence canadienne et essaie de risoudre les problmes doctrinaux qui s 'y
rattachent. Enfin, il examine lesfaiblesses conceptuelles de cette idje.
    Meme s'il s 'est produit beaucoup de choses dans la jurisprudence sur les droits
de la personne depuis vingt ans, le concept d'accommodement n'est pas encore
pleinement diveloppi. Jusqu 'b maintenant, la Cour supreme du Canada a traits du
devoir d'accommodement seulement dans des affaires de discrimination enfonction
de l'age et de la religion. II n 'est pas sir que ce devoir s'appliquera et d'autres types
de discrimination, tels que le handicap, la race et le sexe. 11 n 'estpas sfir non plus qu 'il
doive lefaire. Les auteurs sontd'avis que le concept <<d'accommodement raisonnable)'
estinaptea traiterdesproblmesd'ingalit et favoriserledveloppementd'institutions
ouvertes 6 tous. Il est viciJ par I'acceptation implicite que les normes sociales
devraient etre diterminjes par les groupes plus puissants, avec des concessions
pouvant etre amrnag6es concrtement enfaveur de ceux qui sont <<diffrents>>.
    La those des auteurs est que la jurisprudence sur l' accommodementpeut etre
sauvge mais seulement si les tribunaux et les autres dicideurs rejettent le
paradigme <',pareil/difftrent>>, car il est inadjquat pour rgsoudre des problmes
qui enfait concernent des inegalit6s de pouvoir entre des groupes de personnes.

Introduction ................................................................................................ 4 34
I.     Supreme Court of Canada Doctrine on Accommodation:
       O'Malley, Bhinder, and Central Alberta Dairy Pool ..................... 435

 * Shelagh Day, of the Canadian Human Rights Reporter, Vancouver, British Columbia.
 ** Gwen Brodsky, Barrister & Solicitor, Vancouver, British Columbia.

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.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most