•  
  •  
 
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference

Abstract

Ward, a well-known Quebec comedian, thought it would be funny to publicly ridicule and humiliate an adolescent with a disability known in Quebec for his singing. Quebec’s Human Rights Tribunal found that Ward violated his target’s statutory right to be free from disability discrimination in relation to the right to dignity, guaranteed by section 4 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. A five-justice majority of a sharply split Supreme Court of Canada overturned the award, leaving Ward free to repeat his bullying. Ward’s Supreme Court majority extended problematic legal protection to extreme, widely disseminated public taunting and bullying of a child with a disability. It treated Ward, a professional comedian, as deserving extra legal protection while engaging in comedy. It treated his young victim as a less protected target because he was a “public figure.” This paper explores major errors in the majority decision beyond those in the dissent. Scrutinized through a disability lens (focusing on its impact on the equality rights of people with disabilities), the Ward majority decision reflects a stunning lack of understanding of, and devaluation of, equality for people with disabilities. It rests on bogus, unsupported judge-made psychology. It employs a harmful hierarchical approach to equality rights which deprioritizes disability equality. Some of Ward’s errors are rooted in problematic principles that the Court earlier established. Others are the Ward majority’s own innovations.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS