Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Huck v. Canadian Odeon Theaters Limited
Transcript of Huck v. Canadian Odeon Theaters Limited
In May 1980 he purchased a ticket to see a movie at a theatre owned by Canadian Odeon Theatres Ltd.
He was told that either he move himself from the wheelchair to a theatre seat else the only place in the theatre he could sit with his wheelchair was at the very front of the theatre
Michael Huck filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of physical disability with the human rights commission
Huck and the Human Rights Commission appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Reasoning: The absence of a motive to discriminate is not determinative of whether or not discrimination occurred.
It is not discriminatory intent which is prohibited by the legislation, but the discriminatory result.
Identical treatment does not necessarily mean equal treatment or lack of discrimination Muscular dystrophy is a group of inherited disorders that involve muscle weakness and loss of muscle tissue, which gets worse over time.
All of the muscles may be affected, or only specific groups.
MD can affect adults, but the more severe forms tend to occur in early childhood.
Some symptoms include: mental retardation and muscle weakness that slowly gets worse. Huck won his case at the Human Rights Board of Inquiry
The Court of Queen's Bench overturned the original decision
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal struck down the lower court's ruling siding with the Boards decision. Decision: Issues: Was Michael Huck discriminated against on the basis of physical disability?
Did the theatre have the right to refuse to compensate for Michael's disability? Turnbull, et al. v. Famous Players; five complainants who alleged that three prominent Toronto Famous Players theatres discriminated against them. Occurring between 1993 and 1996 the complainants were either discouraged by theatre staff from using the theatre of refused admittance.
Famous Players was found to have discriminated against the complainants and were forced to compensate them ranging in the amount of $8000-$10000. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act is the short title of the Ontario Government's Bill 125.
This acts goal is to improve the identification, removal and prevention of barriers faced by persons with disabilities and to make related amendments to other Acts.
This act was then later replaced with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act in 2005
All the things stated in both acts were meant to apply to employment, public transit, education, provincial and municipal government services and facilities, and other goods, services and facilities offered to the public We agree with the final ruling and believe that the actions of the theatre were quite discriminatory. Even though the treatment was the same the results were different. If two students both do the grade 10 literacy test but one is in grade 1 whilst the other is in grade 12 then is this non discriminatory?
If a human with scuba gear is placed into a sealed tank for an hour would anyone dare argue it's the same as placing a human without scuba gear into the same tank? Do you agree with the final ruling that Huck was discriminated against?
Had you been a employee at the theatre, would you have done anything differently?
What sort of compensation do you believe Canadian Odeon Theatres should have given to Huck?
Any answers to the previous situations? The End Thank you for listening