Canadian Human Rights Act

The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) is Canada’s foundational federal anti-discrimination legislation, in force since 1977. While it predates the modern web, it has been interpreted by courts and tribunals to cover digital accessibility barriers as a form of discrimination on the basis of disability.

Scope: Who is covered?

The CHRA applies to federally regulated organizations (the same set covered by the Accessible Canada Act):

  • Federal government departments and agencies
  • Banks chartered under the Bank Act
  • Telecommunications and broadcasting companies
  • Airlines, railways, and interprovincial transportation carriers
  • Canada Post
  • Federally regulated First Nations organizations

Disability as a prohibited ground

Section 3 of the CHRA lists disability as one of 13 prohibited grounds of discrimination. The definition of disability is broad and includes:

  • Physical disabilities (mobility impairments, vision, hearing loss)
  • Mental health conditions
  • Developmental disabilities
  • Neurological conditions
  • Episodic disabilities (e.g., multiple sclerosis, epilepsy)
  • Past disabilities and conditions perceived as disabilities

What constitutes discrimination?

Under the CHRA, discrimination occurs when a person is treated adversely, or denied equal access to a service, because of a protected characteristic — in this case, disability. An inaccessible website can constitute discrimination in the provision of a service when:

  • A blind user cannot access account information on a bank’s website because it is incompatible with screen readers
  • A Deaf user cannot access a government service because online video content lacks captions
  • A person with a motor disability cannot complete a form because it requires a mouse

Courts and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal have found that equal access to digital services is a protected right for Canadians with disabilities.

The duty to accommodate

Leadership

A central concept under the CHRA is the duty to accommodate. Federally regulated organizations have a legal obligation to accommodate persons with disabilities to the point of undue hardship.

What is “undue hardship”?

The undue hardship threshold is deliberately high. The following factors are considered:

  • Cost — financial cost to the organization, considering its size and resources
  • Health and safety — genuine health or safety concerns affecting other employees or the public
  • Interoperability — whether accommodation would fundamentally change the nature of the service

Cost alone rarely constitutes undue hardship for large organizations. Simply “not having budgeted for it” or “it would take developer time” has not been accepted as undue hardship by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

The complaint process

Anyone who believes they have experienced discrimination by a federally regulated organization can file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

Step 1: Attempt to resolve directly

Before filing a formal complaint, individuals are encouraged to try to resolve the issue directly with the organization using its feedback or accessibility complaint process (required under the Accessible Canada Act).

Step 2: File a complaint with the CHRC

Complaints can be filed online at the CHRC website. There is no fee to file. The complaint must be filed within one year of the last discriminatory act (with discretion to extend).

Step 3: Initial review

The CHRC reviews the complaint to determine if it falls within its jurisdiction and discloses it to the respondent organization.

Step 4: Investigation

If the complaint is accepted, a CHRC investigator reviews the evidence and may request documentation from both parties, including accessibility audit results.

Step 5: Conciliation

The CHRC strongly encourages mediated settlement (conciliation) before proceeding to a tribunal. Many complaints are resolved at this stage through a settlement agreement that may include:

  • Remediation of the accessibility barrier within a fixed timeline
  • Financial compensation to the complainant
  • Training requirements for the organization’s staff

Step 6: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

If conciliation fails, the CHRC may refer the complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT). The Tribunal is an independent quasi-judicial body that holds hearings and issues binding decisions.

Possible Tribunal orders include:

  • Cease the discriminatory practice
  • Take specified measures to redress the discrimination (e.g., fix the website, implement WCAG)
  • Compensate the complainant for lost wages, expenses, and pain and suffering (up to $20,000)
  • Pay a special compensation award (up to $20,000) for wilful or reckless discriminatory practice

Relationship to the Accessible Canada Act

The ACA and CHRA operate alongside each other for federally regulated organizations:

Accessible Canada ActCanadian Human Rights Act
ModelProactive (plans and reports required)Reactive (complaint-driven)
Who can complainAnyone, about any ACA obligationIndividuals who have experienced discrimination
EnforcerAccessibility Commissioner (within CHRC)Canadian Human Rights Commission / Tribunal
Max penalty$250,000 administrative monetary penalty$20,000 compensation + special damages + tribunal orders
Digital standardReferences EN 301 549 / WCAG 2.1 AANo specific standard — reasonableness test

Frequently asked questions

Can someone sue under the CHRA in civil court?

The CHRA does not provide a direct private right of action in court — complaints must go through the CHRC process. However, complainants can seek judicial review of CHRC and CHRT decisions in Federal Court.

Does the CHRA cover mobile apps?

Yes. The CHRA’s prohibition on discrimination in the provision of services is not limited to websites. Mobile apps, telephone systems, automated services, and any other digital channel that federally regulated organizations use to serve the public fall within scope.

What if we provide an accessible alternative (e.g., a phone line)?

Providing an alternative channel — such as a toll-free phone number for users who cannot access your website — may reduce liability in some cases. However, the Tribunal has found that requiring users with disabilities to use a less convenient channel when others can self-serve online can itself be discriminatory. The standard is equal access, not just some access.

Is there a statute of limitations?

Complaints must generally be filed within one year of the discriminatory act. For ongoing barriers (e.g., a persistently inaccessible website), the clock restarts each time a person attempts to access the service and cannot.