Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses the the balancing of charter rights with competing disabilities.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week, and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
Graeme McCreath is a blind man who needed the assistance of sometimes a cane, and sometimes a service animal. When he called for a taxi, the taxi driver refused him service on the basis of the fact that the driver was allergic to dogs. The driver contacted another taxi and another taxi arrived and McCreath made it to his destination.
McCreath filed a complaint with the BC Human Rights tribunal arguing that his human rights had been violated on the basis of the Taxi company’s refusal to provide him with service, given that he needed a guide dog to accommodate his disability. McCreath lost, that decision was appealed, it was upheld on appeal, and again on appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada recently denied leave the appeal.
This case raises a very important issue on balancing charter rights. This case balanced the charter rights of two separate individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, the SCC missed the opportunity to clarify this and make it easier for balancing these competing disabilities within a charter context and within a human rights context in the future.
Watch the video for more.
See more: