I. INTRODUCTION
[1] These are my Reasons for Decision concerning the Complaint of James Peter Hughes
against Elections Canada ("EC"). Mr. Hughes alleges that he was denied an accessible
polling location and adversely differentiated against on account of his disability when he
went to vote at St. Basil's Church in the downtown Toronto riding of Toronto Centre on
two occasions within a 7-month time span (the March 17, 2008 federal by-election and
the October 14, 2008 federal general election), contrary to subsections 5(a) and 5(b) of
the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, as amended ("CHRA"). His
Complaint also deals with the lack of proper investigation and action by EC following his
verbal and written complaints to it.
II. COMPLAINT
[2] Mr. Hughes filed his Complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission
("Commission") on June 5, 2008. As this was four months before the October 14 th
general election, the Complaint form itself only dealt with the March 17 th by-election
incident. The Commission investigated and referred the subject-matter of the Complaint
to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ("Tribunal") on December 29, 2008. By this
time, the second incident of the October 14 th general election had occurred. This second
incident and EC's handling of the two incidents form part of the subject-matter before the
Tribunal. None of the parties disagree with this. 1
III. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Commission Not Participating
[3] The Commission indicated early after the referral that it would be participating in the
hearing. A week before the hearing on the merits began, it indicated that it would no
longer participate; however, it remains a party. Commission counsel did indicate in
writing that the Commission would participate in any systemic remedies, including
"monitoring" of EC, if such remedies were granted by the Tribunal.
Motion for Interested Party Status
[4] Prior to the hearing, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities ("CCD") brought a
motion to be added as an intervenor or Interested Party. The Complainant supported
CCD's motion and EC consented with conditions. The Tribunal granted the request. CCD
was allowed to make oral and written argument. The title of proceeding was amended
accordingly. CCD's participation in the hearing was helpful. CCD is a pan-Canadian not-
2010 CHRT 4 (CanLII)
IX. IMPORTANCE OF ELECTIONS
X. STATUTORY PROVISIONS
XI. UNIQUE STATUS OF HUMAN RIGHTS STATUTES
XII. LEGAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO LIABILITY
XIII. LEGAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO REMEDY
XIV. ANALYSIS
XV. REMEDY
XVI. ORDER