Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this
Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.The Tribunal and the Ontario Superior Court have held that the prohibition against
reprisal is important because without it, the purpose and effectiveness of the Code
would be diluted. The purpose of the prohibition is to ensure that persons may claim
and enforce the fundamental rights set out in the Code without fear or intimidation.^101
To prove reprisal an applicant must establish that the respondent engaged in an action
or threat that was intended as retaliation for claiming or enforcing a right under the
Code.^102 An actual or threatened retaliatory act is required; it is not sufficient for the
respondent to have been angry or upset as a result of the applicant having filed a
human rights claim.^103 The requirement to prove intent differentiates reprisal from
discrimination more generally.
There is no requirement for the applicant to have actually filed a human rights claim,
and there is no requirement for the Tribunal to have found that the respondent
discriminated against the applicant in other ways.
E. Systemic DiscriminationPersons with disabilities experience discrimination in complex ways. Many aspects of
our society are constructed on the basis of able-bodied norms and assumptions, leading
to the creation of barriers that exclude people with disabilities from full participation.
These norms and assumptions are part of our everyday interactions with institutions,
bureaucracies, services, organizations and each other. In PSAC v. Canada (Treasury
Board), the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recognized that, “long-standing social and
(^101) Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 (CanLII) at para 30; Jones v. Amway of Canada Ltd. (2002),
C.H.R.R. Doc. 02 102 -177 (Ontario Superior Court) at para. 4.
103 Jones v. Amway of Canada Ltd., 2001 CanLII 26217 (ON HRT).^
Entrop v. Imperial Oil, supra note 78; Noble v. York University, supra note 101 at paras. 30-31.