Disability Law Primer (PDF) - ARCH Disability Law Centre

VII. WHAT DISCRIMINATION DOES THE CODE PROHIBIT?

A. Direct and Adverse Effect Discrimination

The Code provides that all “persons” (including private and corporate actors) are
prohibited from infringing upon the rights of people with disabilities, either directly or
indirectly.^70 Direct discrimination occurs when the actions of another prevent a person
from having equal access to or deny the person services, goods, facilities, benefits,
employment, housing, or other social areas enumerated in the Code, because of his/her
disability. Direct discrimination can also result from the application of a standard or policy
that is discriminatory on its face. Human rights law is concerned not with formal equality,
but with substantive equality, the actual distribution of resources, opportunities and
choices within a society.^71

Some examples of direct discrimination include:

• a landlord may refuse to rent an apartment to a person because of a policy not to
  rent to people with mental health issues;


• an employer may refuse a job interview to someone with a communication
  disability;


• a restaurant owner may ask a person to leave a restaurant due to the presence of
  his or her service animal;


• a person who uses a power wheelchair may be unable to attend a public meeting
  due to the venue being inaccessible;

(^70) Code,supra note 4 at s. 9.
(^71) Anne Bayefsky, "Defining Equality Rights" in A. Bayefsky& M. Eberts eds., Equality Rights and the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Toronto: Carswell, 1985) 1 at 1. Bayefsky described equality
of results as “a principle requiring action, which will achieve more equality in resources and rights.
Equality of results will sometime require inequality of opportunity." In Andrews v. Law Society of British
Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143, Justice McIntyre expressly recognized that “the accommodation of
differences....is the essence of true equality.” Justice McIntyre adopted the observation from Justice
Dickson (as he then was) in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295that, “the interests of true
equality may well require differentiation in treatment.”