In Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse v. 9185-2152 Québec inc. (Radio Lounge Brossard), 2015 QCCA 577, the Court of Appeal was seized with a discrimination complaint which had been rejected by the Human Rights Tribunal. The question at issue was to determine whether a blind person could attend all of the areas of a discotheque while accompanied by his guide dog. The Court responded affirmatively in this case, since it concluded (with one judge dissenting) that no real attempt was made to accomodate the plaintiff and it was not proven that there was a "serious or excessive" risk that the safety of other clients would be jeopardized unless the paintiff was confined to the VIP section (exclusion and isolation). The Court considered that the testimony provided regarding the fact that inebriated clients could trip in the dark was impressionistic. The paintiff obtained $2500 in moral damages.
On a very anecdotal level, we should gather from this decision that courts cannot take judicial notice of the quality of services offered in various sections of a discotheque, and that proof thereof ust be made:
"[32] Finally, his conclusion that services offered in the VIP booths were of Superior quality than those offered in the main area of the discotheque is the result of an extrapolation that is not supported by evidence. Radio Lounge did not prove the condition of these VIP booths, nor the services that were offered there."
[OUR TRANSLATION]
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire