Disability Law Primer (PDF) - ARCH Disability Law Centre

• requiring respondent to alter its policies and practices that create barriers for
  people with disabilities;^167


• requiring respondent to implement a process for receiving feedback or
  complaints about accessibility issues;^168 and


• ordering that particular legislation should not be enforced;^169

In Moore the Supreme Court cautioned that remedies must flow from the discrimination
claim. Where an individual claims that s/he has been discrimination against, a human
rights tribunal may order individual remedies. Individual remedies may have an impact
on others beyond the individual, and in that sense be systemic in nature. However,
broad systemic remedies cannot be ordered unless there is evidence and a finding of
systemic discrimination.^170 Thus, when seeking systemic remedies, counsel must
ensure that the case offers an appropriate evidentiary and factual basis to support this
request.

B. General Damages: Injury to Dignity, Feelings, Self-Respect

In Arunachalam v. Best Buy Canada, the Tribunal confirmed that two criteria are
generally applied when making a global evaluation of the appropriate quantum of
general damages: (1)the objective seriousness of the conduct; and (2) the effect on the
particular applicant who experienced discrimination. The Tribunal explained that:

The first criterion recognizes that injury to dignity, feelings, and self

respect is generally more serious depending, objectively, upon what

occurred. For example, dismissal from employment for discriminatory

reasons usually affects dignity more than a comment made on one

occasion. Losing long-term employment because of discrimination is

typically more harmful than losing a new job. The more prolonged, hurtful,

(^167) Ibid. In Hughes, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered Elections Canada to, within 12 months
of the decision, review their existing policies and guidelines and manuals on disability accessibility issues. 168
169 See, for example: Ibid.^
See Ivancicevic v. Minister of Consumer Services and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of
Ontario 170 , 2011 HRTO 1714.
Moore, supra note 62 at paras. 63-71.