[41] I also note the evidence of the 2006 Statistics Canada report showing the number of persons with various impairments and disabilities in Canada: 4.4 million Canadians with an activity limitation yielding a disability rate of 14.3%. What is more telling is the demographic trend upward of Canadians reaching the status of "senior citizen" and the resulting increase of persons with disabilities in Canada, including those with mobility impairments. X. STATUTORY PROVISIONS [42] Mr. Hughes' Complaint alleges the violation of subsections 5(a) and 5(b) of the CHRA: 5. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. XI. UNIQUE STATUS OF HUMAN RIGHTS STATUTES [43] As recently as 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid,3 at para. 81: "...the Canadian Human Rights Act is a quasiconstitutional document and we should affirm that any exemption from its provisions must be clearly stated." [44] In Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. Via Rail,4 the Supreme Court of Canada wrote at para. 115: In Winnipeg School Division,5 McIntyre J. confirmed that where there is a conflict between human rights law and other specific legislation, unless an exception is created, the human rights legislation, as a collective statement of public policy, must govern. It follows as a natural corollary that where a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, it must be interpreted consistently with human rights principles. The [Canadian Transportation] Agency is therefore obliged to apply the principles of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, when defining and identifying "undue obstacles" in the transportation context. XII. LEGAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO LIABILITY 2010 CHRT 4 (CanLII) disability attempting to vote. Included in this was the impact of disabled voters going to "separate but equal" facilities to exercise their franchise or facilities with only "back entrances" available to them. There should be no hierarchy of citizenship when it comes to voting in Canada: no second class voters. Professor Frazee's expert evidence and Mr. Hughes' testimony showed the damaging impact on persons with disabilities going away from the polling site thinking that their presence was at best unexpected, and at worst unwelcome.