Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Human rights — Jurisdiction — Canadian Human Rights Commission — Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission — Accessibility of services normally made available to the public by a broadcast distribution undertaking to a person with a disability — Whether the CRTC has jurisdiction to regulate the hardware and software components of set-top boxes and electronic programming guides — Within the standard of reasonableness, what degree of deference is owed to the CHRC’s administrative screening decisions under ss. 41 and 44 of the Canadian Human Rights Act — What role should the courts play in facilitating access to justice for persons with disabilities — Whether the distribution of interveners created an unjust imbalance of argument.

Mr. Eadie, who is blind, filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) raising three allegations of discrimination in the provision of those services contrary to s. 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6. The first two complaints were resolved by the CRTC, so the only outstanding complaint was that the set-top box supplied by MTS fails to provide audible cues to facilitate access and use of the interactive programming guide. There was no dispute that Mr. Eadie could not use the interactive programming guide without the assistance of a sighted person, so the only real questions were whether a technical solution that would accommodate Mr. Eadie was available, and whether such a solution would impose undue hardship on MTS. The parties agreed that this issue was systemic within the Canadian broadcasting industry. The investigator recommended that the CRHC deal with the complaint. The CHRC adopted the investigator’s decision and referred the matter to an inquiry. MTS’s application for judicial review was allowed and the matter was returned to the Commission for redetermination. Mr. Eadie’s appeal and MTS’s cross-appeal were both dismissed.