XIV. ANALYSIS Subsections 5(a) and 5(b) of the CHRA [52] The Complainant and CCD argue that both subsections of section 5 have been violated here. EC says the case is one of subsection 5(b) and that the Tribunal need not address subsection 5(a). I find that both subsections have been infringed in the instant case. [53] First, I am satisfied that EC provides a "service" and "facility" "customarily available to the general public" under the section. It is not just the provision of physical space in which to vote. EC provides a public service - a paramount one - of providing the means by which the public may exercise its democratic franchise. The service includes providing public information, barrier-free voting locations and polling stations, polite interaction of its officials with the voters, and the facilitation of accessible voting for all, including voters with disabilities. [54] The foregoing applies the reasoning of the Federal Court of Appeal in Watkin v. Canada (Attorney General),14 which is the recent case on "services" under section 5 of the CHRA. That case involved a complaint against Health Canada alleging discrimination in the regulation of herbal products based on ethnic origin. The Court held that the enforcement actions of Health Canada did not constitute a "service" as per section 5. The Court stated that not all governmental actions are "services" under the CHRA. At para. 28, the Court wrote: "Public authorities can and do engage in the provision of services in fulfilling their statutory functions." It then listed several examples of services provided by government departments and agencies. The running of elections by EC could fit easily into that list. At para. 31, the Court further stated: "I agree that because government actions are generally taken for the benefit of the public, the "customarily available to the general public" requirement in section 5 will usually be present in cases involving discrimination arising from government actions..." [55] Various findings of liability fall, in the case before me, under either or both of the subsections here. The fact that Mr. Hughes was able to vote does not insulate EC from subsection 5(a): "to deny, or to deny access to,..."; e.g., his having to go down the stairs by "the seat of [his] pants", and be assisted into and out of the premises. Liability of EC [56] As indicated earlier, EC admitted at the outset of the hearing its liability under subsection 5(b) of the CHRA only. The Complainant and CCD argue that EC is liable under subsection 5(a) too. EC says its liability is based on the combined effect of various facts: 2010 CHRT 4 (CanLII) [51] Remedial orders also may include the involvement of the human rights commission or other parties in terms of consultation, or the appointment of a monitor for the implementation of the orders.13 Such involvement of other actors recognizes that the courts and tribunals have an adjudicative role and formal process that do not translate well into the technical or task-specific aspects of the implementation of orders often affecting the day-to-day operations of a governmental or corporate respondent.