Damage to Dignity: Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
==Noe v. Ranee Management, 2014 HRTO 1658 (CanLII)==
==Noe v. Ranee Management, 2014 HRTO 1658 (CanLII)==


[2] The Tribunal held a hearing in this matter on February 21, 2014. In Decision 2014 HRTO 746, dated May 23, 2014, I found that the applicant has a disability that causes her to be sensitive to chemicals. I further found that she asked the respondent to accommodate her regarding its use of chemicals (paints, solvents, cleaners, etc.) in the apartment building in which she lived at 195 Barrington Avenue in Toronto. The respondent declined to accommodate the applicant, which I found was a breach of her right to be free from discrimination in the occupancy of accommodation under section 2(1) of the Code.


<ref name="Noe">Noe v. Ranee Management, 2014 HRTO 1658 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gfb4f>, retrieved on 2020-10-17</ref>
<ref name="Noe">Noe v. Ranee Management, 2014 HRTO 1658 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gfb4f>, retrieved on 2020-10-17</ref>
==References==
==References==

Revision as of 01:19, 18 October 2020


Noe v. Ranee Management, 2014 HRTO 1658 (CanLII)

[2] The Tribunal held a hearing in this matter on February 21, 2014. In Decision 2014 HRTO 746, dated May 23, 2014, I found that the applicant has a disability that causes her to be sensitive to chemicals. I further found that she asked the respondent to accommodate her regarding its use of chemicals (paints, solvents, cleaners, etc.) in the apartment building in which she lived at 195 Barrington Avenue in Toronto. The respondent declined to accommodate the applicant, which I found was a breach of her right to be free from discrimination in the occupancy of accommodation under section 2(1) of the Code.

[1]

References

  1. Noe v. Ranee Management, 2014 HRTO 1658 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gfb4f>, retrieved on 2020-10-17