HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL DISABILITY CASE SUMMARIES IN MAY AND JUNE 2025
The following are a summary of recent decisions relating to disability and human rights from the human rights tribunals in Canada (Summer, 2025, Issue 1).
This issue of our digest covers a selection of decisions from the Human Rights Tribunals of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Supreme Court of Canada during the months of May and June, 2025.
This information is not intended to provide legal advice.
Prepared by Research Assistants for the Law, Disability & Social Change Project: Farah Al Madani (JD Candidate, 2026), Simran Toor (JD Candidate, 2026) and Rachel McCallister de Abreu (JD Candidate, 2026).
May 2025
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
The Applicant v The Respondent, 2025 HRTO 1109 (CanLII)
Date Issued: May 1, 2025
This application was made due to claims that the respondents discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability and accommodations contrary to section 2 of the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). The applicant applied to rent a room in a house owned and occupied by the respondents, with a shared kitchen and bathroom. The applicant alleges that the respondent denied his application because of his disability. Under section 21(1) of the Code, the protections for rental accommodations in section 2 do not apply if the person is renting a dwelling with a shared kitchen or bathroom with the owner or the owner’s family.
The applicant filed a Notice of Constitutional Question claiming that section 21(1) of the Code is unconstitutional under sections 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”). These sections of the Charterprotect a person’s right to life, liberty, and security (section 7), as well as the right to equality under the law without discrimination (section 15). Although the Tribunal cannot declare that section 21(1) of the Code is unconstitutional, it can decline to apply the section if doing so would be unconstitutional.
For the applicant to successfully argue that section 21(1) violates section 15(1) of the Charter, they must show that the section creates a distinction based on a protected ground such as disability. They also need to prove that this distinction imposes a burden or denies a benefit in a way that worsens the disadvantage.
The Tribunal concluded that section 21(1) does not, prima facie, create a distinction based on disability. The applicant claims that section 21(1) is discriminatory because it “creates a Code-free zone” for certain discriminatory business practices to go unchecked. However, the Tribunal found that section 21(1) does not directly discriminate against people with disabilities as it applies to all Ontarians equally. In other words, the provision does not make an explicit distinction between persons with or without disabilities. The Tribunal also found that there was a lack of evidence that demonstrates that section 21(1) disproportionately impacts people with disabilities. The applicant argued that evidence shows that people with disabilities are disproportionately lower income, receive public assistance, and face housing insecurity. Based on this, excluding shared accommodations from equal protection laws can lead to unfair treatment, leaving people with disabilities unprotected and vulnerable. The respondents do not dispute that people with disabilities face socio-economic disadvantages. However, the respondents argue that s 21(1) does not cause or contribute to this disadvantage as it does not widen the gap between people with disabilities and others.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission was also an intervenor in this matter, and they provided case law to argue that section 21(1) results in differential treatment as it disproportionately exposes people with disabilities to existing negative and discriminatory attitudes of landlords. However, the Tribunal determined that the case law they presented was not comparable to section 21(1). Instead, the Tribunal emphasized that a law cannot be considered discriminatory if it does not give a benefit to a protected group, especially if that benefit has not been given to anyone else.
The Tribunal also found that the applicant was unable to demonstrate that section 21(1) violated the right to life and security under section 7 of the Charter. The applicant argued that section 21(1) made it more difficult for people with disabilities to access shared accommodations, which infringes on their right to life and security. However, the Tribunal found the applicant could not prove that section 21(1) interfered with body autonomy or caused serious psychological harm, as it does not prohibit an individual from accessing shelter. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided that the applicant did not establish a prima facie violation of sections 7 or 15(1) of the Charter and the application was dismissed.
The Applicant v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1183, 2025 HRTO 1165
Date Issued: May 9, 2025
This application is based on a matter alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of disability, family status, and age contrary to the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). The applicant is a minor who is autistic and is represented by her mother as her litigation guardian. The applicant alleges that the respondents, the Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation, did not accommodate her disability, age, and family status in the condominium building she resided as they did not address noise disturbances. The applicant argues that the noise complaints engaged the Code because the applicant was a baby, and her mother and child family relationship was impacted. A preliminary and summary hearing was heard by the Tribunal to determine if some allegations may be dismissed.
The application of alleged discrimination was filed on May 15, 2019, and set out numerous incidents including loud piano noise heard from early morning to late night. The applicant’s litigation guardian informed the board and property management of her child’s disability and followed up with a pediatrician’s support letter however little to no action was taken. Moreover, property management required a sound test to be conducted in order to take proper steps to address the matter. However, the piano noise became so distressing that the applicant was woken from sleep and had to be taken out of the apartment for several hours due to the disturbance.
The litigation guardian alleged that the property management and condominium board did not take any of her correspondence or meetings seriously. The respondents claimed that the application should be dismissed due to the delay in bringing the claim and as the allegations are untimely. The President of the Board testified that the Board took the complaints seriously however there were limitations with respect to the enforcement of these rules. Under sections 34(1) and (2) of the Code, applications must be filed within one year after the incident or in situations where there are series of incidents, then within one year from the last incident. Additionally, for there to be a “series” of events, there must be a connection between the incidents that are alleged to form the numerous incidents. The Tribunal has held that incidents that are different in facts and engage different grounds under the Code are not a series of incidents pursuant to section 34(2).
Ultimately the Tribunal found a delay between the litigation guardian receiving the doctor’s letter and the submission of the letter two months later. Further, the Tribunal recognized that the sound test was a part of the process to address the complaint and not an alleged incident of discrimination. Overall, the Tribunal found that the “series” of incidents alleged by the applicant were continuing effects and not independent acts of discrimination by the respondents. The Tribunal discovered that the litigation guardian had access to legal counsel at least by August 2018 but did not file an application until May 2019, causing a delay in bringing forward the matter. Thus, the entire application was dismissed.
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
The Complainant v. BC Housing (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 128
Date Issued: May 30, 2025
The complainant is an elderly woman who lives with multiple disabilities. She had received a rent subsidy from the British Columbia Housing Commission (BC Housing) as part of a program named “Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters” (SAFER), geared towards financially helping low-income seniors. However, this subsidy was reduced by $260 per month by BC Housing after her son moved in with her as she required daily support due to her age and disabilities.
The complainant filed a complaint against BC Housing with the BC Human Rights Tribunal pursuant to section 8 of the Human Rights Code (HRC), stating that BC Housing deciding to decrease her rent subsidy was discriminating against her on the basis of her disabilities. The BC Human Rights Tribunal accepted this complaint on the grounds of family status.
BC Housing denied the claim of discrimination, citing the decreased subsidy to be as a result of the increased number of residents, which is part of the policy that dictates the amount of the subsidy. BC Housing further noted that the option to have a live-in caregiver without reducing the subsidy is available, given that the caregiver is a hired professional paid by a governmental health authority. The complainant’s son does not fit this policy specification. It was on this basis that BC Housing filed an application to dismiss the claim under section 27(1)(c) of the HRC, citing no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal denied this application, citing the fact that the complainant demonstrated that she required daily live-in care, and that she is unable to receive this care from anyone other than a family member. Further, when her family member took on the role of her live-in caregiver, her subsidy was reduced. The decision further emphasized that BC Housing failed to establish that their policy had a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on persons who need and are only able to receive live-in care from family. This demonstrates a clear link between the complainant’s familial status and the decrease of her subsidy exists, and therefore the matter would proceed to a hearing. The Tribunal also fast-tracked the matter due to the complainant’s age and health conditions.
The Care Aide v. Vancouver Island Health Authority and another, 2025 BCHRT 125
Date Issued: May 23, 2025
In this case, a Care Aide (the complainant) filed a compliant against her employer, the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) long-term care home and her Manager (together the respondents), alleging employment discrimination on the basis of mental disability, sex and family status contrary to section 13 of the Human Rights Code (HRC). The respondents filed a motion to dismiss the claims based on the fact that it was filed outside of the one-year limit prescribed under section 21(7) of the HRC.
The Care Aide reported growing up being violently sexually abused by a family member. After disclosing the sexual assault, the Care Aide was met with ridicule, bullying, pressure to protect the perpetrator, and accusations of dishonesty. She reports never discussing the sexual assault again until events occurred at work. Specifically, during her employment at VIHA, the Care Aide reported (both in writing and verbally) to being sexually harassed by a resident for over a year. She alleged that no solutions or efforts were taken by the respondents in response to her reported abuse. As a result, she was diagnosed and treated for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The complainant also reported developing irritable bowel syndrome, extreme anxiety and night terrors.
The complainant disclosed the sexual harassment as well as her past history of sexual abuse to her manager due to the debilitating effects on her health. It is alleged that the manager advised the complainant that no accommodations could be made as it would result in other employees “making up” stories to avoid dealing with this difficult resident. Subsequently, the complainant’s symptoms worsened and she was unable to return to work due to her PTSD related disabilities. She alleges that her manager had contacted her several times to inquire as to her return date and demanded a medical note for her absence. The Care Aide made a WorkSafeBC claim, which was delayed due to the manager’s denial of events. She had gone months without pay and medical insurance following her leave.
Despite the late filing of her complaint, the Tribunal decided to accept the late complaint, citing that it was in the public interest to do so. The decision noted that the three-week delay in filing could be attributed to the Care Aide’s PTSD symptoms and mental disability, and to deny a claim in this context would go against public interest. The Tribunal also found no substantial prejudice would result from accepting the late filing. Therefore, the complaint was accepted for filing.
Parent obo Student v. BC Ministry of Education and another, 2025 BCHRT 112
Date Issued: May 14, 2025
The complaint was filed by the parents (the Parent) of an indigenous student (the Student) who is living with various diagnosed mental disabilities including Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-Combined (ADHD-C), anxiety, depression and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). The Parent alleged that the BC Ministry of Education and the School District (the respondents) discriminated against the child’s education on the basis of her indigeneity and disability when they did not allow her to attend school full-time and participate in activities with peers. More specifically, the Parent alleges that the student was prohibited from attending school full-time, and was only allowed to attend for 30 minutes each day, and that the child was not allowed to attend in-school group activities or extra-curricular activities. Multiple instances of derogatory and negative comments about the student from high officials such as the principal and vice-principal were also mentioned.
The respondents deny these claims, and brought an application to dismiss the case without a hearing pursuant to sections 27(1)(a) and (g) of the Human Rights Code (HRC), stating that the claim was brought in an untimely manner and was out of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Ministry brought another application to dismiss on the basis that the complainant has no prospect of success. The School District expressed that they were following the Ministry’s “Special Needs Student Order” when they began the student on the partial day schedule.
The Tribunal found that the instances mentioned in the claim amount to a continued contravention of the Code. The analysis of this decision also states that the claim has validity as the child’s behaviour, that has been used as the reasoning for her part-time attendance program and has been negatively mentioned by members of the School District, is connected to her disabilities. The Tribunal also recognized the claim was made in a timely manner, and that its subject matter is of great relevance to the public interest, given the fact that education is a central aspect of human rights and has historically been a human rights concern for indigenous children.
The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the claims against the BC Ministry of Education, stating that it has not required to intervene on the decisions of the School Board and simply oversees funding and oversight, not educational programming. However, the Tribunal decided against dismissing the claims against the School District, stating that while the claim is not challenging the Ministry’s Order, it is challenging the School District’s application of it and is therefore valid. As such, the decision to move forward with a hearing was granted.
Alberta Human Rights Commission
The Complainant v Condominium Corporation No. 831 0969 o/a Westmount Place Condominium Corporation, 2025 AHRC 52 (CanLII)
Date Issued: May 9, 2025
The complainant is a condominium unit owner who requested an accommodation from the Westmount Place Condominium Corporation (“the Condominium”) to allow their dog to assist with sight loss, despite the condominium having a strict “no animal” bylaw. The Condominium questioned the dog’s necessities and credentials and was of the position that they were not obligated to allow service dogs, even with proper credentials. The complainant informally trained their dog for guidance and assistance, but the dog was not certified as a service animal. However, they provided a medical note stating a need for an emotional support dog for medical reasons. The Condominium determined the medical note was inadequate, imposed a fine, and began legal proceedings against the owner for the violation. The complainant filed a human rights complaint against the Condominium, alleging discrimination based on their disability.
The Tribunal found that the complainant’s sight loss is a protected characteristic and that they suffered adverse treatment. There was a clear connection between the complainant’s disability and the adverse treatment.
The Tribunal also found the Condominium discriminated against the complainant by failing in its procedural duty to accommodate their disability. The Condominium did not adequately investigate the owner’s need for the dog. Instead of seeking clarification or further information, the Condominium relied on its own interpretation of the note and its strict no-pets bylaw, immediately rejecting the request and initiating legal proceedings. The Tribunal found that the Condominium should have engaged with the complainant to clarify their accommodation request as they did not give the complainant the opportunity to follow up that the dog was medically necessary. This premature rejection, without sufficient investigation into the complainant’s disability-related needs, constituted a failure to fulfill the procedural duty to accommodate. The Tribunal also determined that the Alberta Human Rights Act prevails over the Condominium’s By-law.
The Complainant v Alberta Health Services, 2025 AHRC 53 (CanLII)
Date Issued: May 23, 2025
The complainant filed a human rights complaint against Alberta Health Services (AHS), alleging discrimination based on physical disability. They worked for AHS as a Registered Nurse since 1996 and developed a physical disability in 2011. The complainant was transferred to transition services in 2019 and provided with ergonomic accommodations. In 2021, AHS informed the complainant that her temporary role would not be extended. The complainant applied for approximately 50 positions within AHS but was not hired for any. While a settlement offer was extended and accepted, the parties disagreed on the agreement’s wording, leading to a dismissal by the Director of the Commission. The complainant requested a review of this dismissal, disputing the existence of a valid agreement. They also argued that the offer was not fair and reasonable. AHS countered that the request for review was late and that the complaint should be dismissed due to the existence of a fair and reasonable settlement offer. AHS further argued that the appropriate forum for this dispute was the union grievance process, as the complainant is a unionized employee with two pending grievances related to the same issue.
The issues at hand are whether the Complaint should have been dismissed, whether the parties reached a settlement agreement (specifically, whether they were ad idem), and whether it was fair and reasonable. In addition, whether the complainant’s request for review was late, whether the Alberta Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction over the withdrawal of the complainant’s union grievances. Finally, whether the human rights complaint is more appropriately dealt with through the union’s grievance process.
The legal principle applied was that unionized employees should pursue employment-related human rights issues through their union’s grievance process, making the Human Rights Tribunal an inappropriate forum. The Tribunal did not rule on whether the parties were ad idem as the case was dismissed on the grounds that the union grievance process was the more appropriate forum. Unionized employees should pursue employment-related human rights issues through their union’s grievance process, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Horrocks.
The issue of whether the settlement offer was fair and reasonable was not addressed as the case was dismissed on the grounds that the union grievance process was the more appropriate forum.
Ultimately the union grievance process was the preferred forum for resolving this complaint. This preference stems from the principle of prioritizing labor arbitration for human rights issues in unionized workplaces. As such, the member dismissed the complaint, rendering the issues of settlement agreement validity and reasonableness moot.
Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission
The Complainant v Spaniard’s Bay (Town), 2025 CanLII 46160 (NL HRC)
Decision date: May 21, 2025
This complaint was filed with the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission in 2017. The complainant alleged harassment during her time working with the respondent, Spaniard’s Bay, as a volunteer firefighter and town councillor, contrary to sections 14 and 17 of the Human Rights Act (HRA). The complainant reported multiple instances of harassment and discrimination between 2010 and 2015 while working for the respondent. Specifically, the complainant reported experiencing gender and disability-based discrimination and comments, insinuating that she was incapable of fulfilling her duties as well as sexually charged innuendos. The complainant voiced her concerns in a public town meeting.
Amongst other claims, the complainant’s claim of discrimination was on the basis of physical disability which stems from her having a degenerative disc condition in her lower back, precluding her from being able to carry more than 10 pounds at a time or repeatedly lift. Her claim states that the fire chief’s unwillingness to accommodate her physical condition by adjusting her duties as a volunteer firefighter with a lighter role constitutes discrimination. The complainant voluntarily resigned from her position.
The Commission found that it was a base occupational requirement that firefighters be able to wear gear that weighs around 30-40 pounds and to be able to regularly lift. As such, the Commission concluded that the respondent was not required to accommodate the complainant by creating a new position for her, and that not doing so was not discriminatory against her physical disability.
Ultimately, the Commission found that the complainant failed to prove a prima facie case of harassment and discrimination and the complaint was dismissed.
The Supreme Court of Canada
R. v. J.W., 2025 SCC 16
Judgment Rendered: May 23, 2025
This is a criminal case, in which J.W. has been found guilty of repeatedly sexually assaulting a residential support worker in the group home he lived in. While J.W. initially plead guilty, the process since his plea proved to be complicated and time consuming. J.W. lives with moderate developmental and cognitive disabilities as well as chronic Schizophrenia. The significance of this court decision is the court’s consideration of J.W.’s disabilities when contemplating his sentence.
J.W. had postponed his plea and sentencing date on at least two occasions. Moreover, he had discharged his counsel on three occasions. Following these instances, J.W. was found to be unfit to stand trial, and was taken to a mental health facility. J.W. was eventually able to plead guilty with his fourth appointed counsel.
In this case, the court did not view the delays in the court process as “wrongful conduct” from J.W. as they were attributed to the nature of his disabilities. The court considered his disabilities as a mitigating factor in his sentencing considerations, and counted the time he spent in a mental facility to go towards “enhanced credit for pre-sentence detention”. While J.W. was sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment, his enhanced credit for pre-sentence detention reduced his sentence by 304 days.
June 2025
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
The Applicant v Brantford Radiology Group, 2025 HRTO 1552 (CanLII)
Date Issued: June 20, 2025
The applicant filed an application against the Brantford Radiology Group (the respondent) alleging discrimination based on disability contrary to the Human Rights Code (“the Code”). This application arises from the COVID-19 pandemic, when mask-wearing laws and regulations related to medical services were enforced. The applicant alleged that they have a disability, identified as “burning mouth syndrome” that causes severe pain when wearing a mask, entitling them to a medical mask exemption.
The applicant alleges that they attended two radiology appointments at the respondent’s office. The applicant described receiving hostile service from their first appointment, after asserting that they would not be wearing a medical mask. Although the applicant reported no issues at the second appointment, they claim the respondent informed them that they would need to wear a mask or obtain an alternative (such as a face shield) at their own cost for any future appointments. Following these two appointments, the applicant did not attend their third appointment at the respondent’s office, and proceeded to book an appointment at a different clinic.
The applicant claimed that their request for a medical mask exemption is what led to the alleged adverse treatment by the respondent. The Tribunal initially sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the case seemed outside its jurisdiction. Although the applicant requested and received an extension to submit their evidence, the respondent claims the applicant never provided sufficient proof that their disability warranted a mask exemption.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence that “burning mouth syndrome” was a disability that fell within the meaning of the Code. The applicant provided a medical letter from their doctor detailing their symptoms and also mentions the applicant’s dentist, who suggested that it could be “burning mouth syndrome.” However, the Tribunal found that the doctor did not provide a formal diagnosis in the letter, and the letter failed to demonstrate how this disability prevented the applicant from wearing a mask during the services received at the respondent’s office.
The applicant also argued that being asked to obtain an alternative face-cover (such as a face shield) was unfair treatment. However, the Tribunal could not determine whether discrimination would have occurred since the applicant went to a different clinic for their third appointment.
Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no factual basis to support that the applicant’s rights under the Codewere violated. Even if “burning mouth syndrome” could fall under the Code’s meaning of a disability, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a clear link between their condition, the mask exemption, and the specific incidents alleged. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.
Alberta Human Rights Commission
The Complainant v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2025 AHRC 71 (CanLII)
Date Issued: June 27, 2025
The complainant filed a human rights complaint against the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT), alleging discrimination based on age, mental disability, and gender expression. The complainant was a student in NAIT’s DMIT Software Development program. During a group project, a group member denied the complainant access to the group’s information portal. The complainant discussed this with the course instructor, who advised them to “suck it up.” The complainant received a C- in the course. They pursued internal reviews and appeals regarding their grade through NAIT’s processes. The complainant filed a bullying complaint against the instructor. The formal grade appeal confirmed the C- grade. The bullying investigation did not find any wrongdoing by the instructor. The Director of the Commission dismissed the complainant’s human rights complaint. The complainant requested a review of the Director’s decision as the complainant alleged the instructor’s comment was discriminatory due to their age and because the instructor referred to their own child who is a different gender. The complainant stated that they have a mental disability and an accommodation plan, but NAIT stated that there was no accommodation plan and no request for accommodations. The complainant expressed concerns about retaliation, privacy, and defamation. The review upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint.
The issue is whether the Complaint should have been dismissed due to no reasonable prospect of success and whether there was discrimination based on age, gender expression, and mental disability.
Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Director’s dismissal, finding no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal determined the instructor’s comment, while unhelpful, did not constitute discrimination based on age or gender expression. The comparison to the instructor’s child was not deemed discriminatory, and the advice was interpreted as professional guidance rather than age-based or gender-based discrimination. Regarding mental disability, the Tribunal found no evidence of an accommodation plan or any request for support, nor any link between the complainant’s mental health and the alleged adverse treatment. The Tribunal also dismissed the retaliation claim due to lack of jurisdiction and supporting evidence. Finally, the Tribunal stated privacy and defamation concerns fall outside its mandate.
Complainant v Respondent, 2025 AHRC 61 (CanLII)
Date Issued: June 5, 2025
The complainant in this case alleges discrimination based on physical disability, specifically related to their service dog. The complainant visited the respondent’s store with their son and service dog to purchase shoes. The complainant was initially asked to leave the store because dogs were not allowed. After explaining that the dog was a registered service animal, the explanation was ignored. The complainant, their son and service dog were ultimately allowed to stay and purchase shoes. The manager apologized for the incident, and offered the complainant a 40% discount for the purchase. The complainant filed a formal complaint with the respondent. Following this complaint, the respondent explained to the complainant the steps they took to provide staff with training on this issue, and offered a gift card in exchange for a release, which the complainant refused.
The complainant then filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. In response, the respondent offered the complainant $10,000 in exchange for a full and final release and withdrawal of the complaint. The complainant refused the settlement, as they did not want to sign the release and wanted an apology from the respondent.
The Director of the Commission (“Director”) dismissed the complaint because the complainant refused a fair and reasonable settlement offer. They noted that the complainant was not ultimately refused service, as the respondent corrected their initial action by allowing the complainant and her service dog to remain in the store and provided a discount.
The Tribunal upheld the Director’s dismissal as they found that the settlement offer was fair and reasonable. The Tribunal stressed the obligation for complainants to accept fair and reasonable offers in human rights complaints, as emphasized by sections 21(3) and 26(3) of the Alberta Human Rights Act (“the Act”).
In analyzing the merits of this case, the member noted that the complainant was not ultimately refused service and that the respondent took corrective actions. The purpose of the Act is not to punish but to restore the complainant to the position they would have been in had the discrimination not occurred. The Tribunal found that the respondent took remedial actions to address the adverse impacts of the interaction. The Tribunal also determined that the respondent’s lack of apology and request for a full and final settlement in exchange for $10,000 in general damages did not render the offer unreasonable, and are considered standard settlement terms.
Law, Disability & Social Change 