- a principal of an elementary school may refuse appropriate accommodations to a
student with autism; and - an administrative tribunal denies a Deaf person’s request to provide an American
Sign Language interpreter at her hearing.
Indirect discrimination has been interpreted to mean using an intermediary to
discriminate.^72 For example, an employer that authorizes an employment agency to
discriminate on its behalf can be found liable for discrimination.^73
In addition, the Code provides that people with disabilities have a right to be free from
adverse effect (also called constructive) discrimination.^74 Adverse effect discrimination
occurs where a rule, standard, policy, procedure, process, requirement, qualification, or
eligibility criterion appears neutral, but has the effect of discriminating against a person
with a disability. For example, a workplace may have a zero-tolerance policy in relation to
attendance. Such a policy may have a disproportionate impact on workers with
disabilities who need to attend regular medical appointments. The Supreme Court of
Canada has described adverse effect discrimination as the manifestation of discrimination
most often experienced by persons with disabilities.^75
The traditional approach to the discrimination analysis required that tribunals characterize
the issue as either direct or adverse effect discrimination. However, the Supreme Court
in Meiorin, developed a unified approach to applying the tests for direct and adverse
effect discrimination.^76 In Grismer, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Meiorin
approach applies to all claims for discrimination.^77 In Entrop v. Imperial Oil, the Court of
(^72) “Accommodation of Disability in Ontario”, supra note 17 at 7.
(^73) Ontario Human Rights Commission, Guidelines on developing human rights policies and procedures
(January 30, 2008), online: Ontario Human Rights Commission <http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/guidelines-
developing- 74 human-rights-policies-and-procedures> at 5-6.
75 Code, supra note 4 at s. 11.^
See, for example:Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 624; British
Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3
S.C.R.868 [ 76 Grismer].
British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 SCR 3
[ 77 Meiorin] at para. 41.
Grismer, supra note 75 at para. 42.