ÿWPC  8pÛÍ_„9ñ2ÐúBP7ü©€©‘ÅJ„hÀ,`(o‡C} Ô¦VŒÍ»šh#ODâ+èA÷ź•Ví™Â*¹eÞµïÿ¸Æ<èV#0õÀLð@é›Ù:oüœ£¿#«!SaŸê£u•y&iL“+ÌfÛé’Þ«uÕˆA~X)=µ¦¤Þ$z˜ae)E,nK_à&11b?$‚)Àðÿ>àqŸ2u³ÁÀ\$M±à³%Ï£‰°&o®ÆÛ±ýâ›kÙµ’>iÁlu2â¡ó57Ná•{‡>i¿ìƒl-°¡Ü ¬¢ïë/Ûá`¯Ì©TgŽàï$²`[C§ÒËV”+êΙyÈB)J«Ó50e1‡À7éFŠÌȾñQʲÖÓ U/ôGNƒÖ :R;‡dlh¤\×@…ÍN«OK­*üÚ*˜ÜË~ÂíZ„õ„ Ý«­Ì: ‚;#mB£L=èÆj 2Õk Wc`¾nϳAÚ³·0¾!È©r Ô°J6²î¶Ã¥]PHf¼¦%l‹«:Œ ñ>^õT!j%ŸHÕ>Œ¹7ƒ¹Î1Ò»øùSi ¢s‰zº¾‚kƯº-3Í~†ô¨/RýLúˆKI¸3ÀHU>BÌ€ 0nL 0iº 0Y# 0_| 0&ÛU6 %7 = 0ÆM #Á UNÔ Ô M" (& NN ^ P w\ 4` t mv ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurisprudence - 4nt - Jurisprudence - "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   <ÿÿ:Default ParaÔ€ôôôÔÔ€XXXÔ< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô<qyÿÿ:HTML TypewriÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔÔS€ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÔ  Ô<þ6X9`(‹Courier New X#|x(ž%›$¡¡ÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ XgÀXX XÔÔ€XgÀXX XgÀÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularÍ{ô* Äpì*TEST3œ ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ %›!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ Xi`XX XÔÔ€Xi`XX Xi`ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔCziklinÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€CanadaóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€Nðð€741/1997Ð H˜ ÐÌ27€July€1999Ð  d ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/66/D/741/1997Ð à 0 ÐòòóóÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Michael€Ô_ÔCziklinÔ_ԀРD”  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€The€author€Ð ` ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€Canada€Ð Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€17€April€1996€óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ Zª Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð @ ÐÌòòMeeting€onóó€27€July€1999€Ð  \ ÐÌòòAdopts€the€followingóó:€Ð Ø( ÐÌÌÓIÓòòò òDecision€on€admissibilityó óóóÐ Š Ú ÐÓÓÌÌ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Mr.€Michael€Ô_ÔCziklinÔ_Ô,€a€Canadian€citizen.€He€claimsÐ <#Œ" Ðto€be€a€victim€of€a€violation€by€Canada€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð "$r# ÐÌòòThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoróó€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ2.1€The€author€was€employed€as€a€trainman€by€Canadian€Pacific€Rail€(CPR),€a€privateÐ º' #' Ðrailway€corporation,€from€1974€to€1976€and€again€on€probationary€employment€from€1Ð  (ð#( ÐNovember€1979€to€2€January€1980,€when€his€employment€was€terminated€on€the€ground€thatÐ †)Ö$) Ðhe€had€back€and€knee€injuries€and€therefore€did€not€meet€the€physical€requirements.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ2.2€Before€taking€up€employment€with€CPR€in€1974,€he€passed€the€physical€examinationÐ 8,ˆ', Ðwithout€referring€to€the€injuries€to€his€right€knee€and€back,€respectively€sustained€in€1966Ð -n(- Ðand€in€1968.€Prior€to€the€probationary€employment€commencing€in€November€1979,€theÐ ° Ðauthor€was€again€tested€by€the€CPR€Examiner€and€approved€for€work€as€a€trainman,€after€heÐ –æ Ðadvised€the€examiner€of€his€knee€injury€but€not€about€his€back€problems.€After€two€weeksÐ |Ì Ðof€service,€the€author€experienced€twitching€in€his€mid„thigh€and€was€sent€to€a€doctor.€ThisÐ b² Ðdoctor€noted€that€the€author€had€a€degenerative€disk€disease€and€that€he€could€not€do€anyÐ H˜ Ðheavy€lifting.€Subsequently,€on€1€December€1979,€the€author€was€allowed€back€to€work€afterÐ . ~ Ðtwo€other€specialists€allegedly€had€offered€opinions€that€his€condition€did€not€represent€anyÐ  d Ðdanger€to€his€work.€Ð ú J ÐÌ2.3€However,€after€a€superintendent€had€reviewed€the€first€doctor's€report€and€the€author'sÐ Æ   Ðfile,€therein€finding€records€of€a€claim€set€forward€in€1977€by€the€author€to€the€Worker'sÐ ¬ ü  ÐCompensation€Board€regarding€the€1968€back€injury,€the€author€was€taken€off€the€job€on€17Ð ’â  ÐDecember€1979€and€was€notified€that€his€probationary€employment€was€terminated€on€2Ð xÈ  ÐJanuary€1980.€During€the€ensuing€year,€the€author€requested€CPR€on€several€occasions€toÐ ^®  Ðreconsider€its€position€and€to€reinstate€him€as€a€trainman,€invoking,€inter€alia,€a€new€letterÐ D”  Ðfrom€the€first€doctor€stating€that€there€was€nothing€in€his€first€report€which€would€suggestÐ *z  Ðthat€termination€of€employment€was€appropriate.€CPR,€however,€maintained€its€position€byÐ ` Ðstating€that€it€would€only€consider€rehiring€the€author€if€CPR's€own€examiner€declared€himÐ öF Ðfully€fit.€Ð Ü, ÐÌ2.4€On€21€July€1981,€the€author€filed€a€complaint€with€the€Canadian€Human€RightsÐ ¨ø ÐCommission,€alleging€discrimination€by€CPR€on€the€basis€of€physical€handicap,€contrary€toÐ ŽÞ Ðparagraphs€7€and€10.€These€provisions€read€as€follows:€Ð tÄ ÐÌà0 4 à7.€It€is€a€discriminatory€practice,€directly€or€indirectly,Ð @ Ð(a)€to€refuse€to€employ€or€continue€to€employ€any€individual,€orÐ &v Ð(b)€in€the€course€of€employment,€to€differentiate€adversely€in€relation€to€anÐ  \ Ðemployee,€on€a€prohibited€ground€of€discrimination€ÐòB4ü!4ü! ÐÌà0 4 à10.€It€is€a€discriminatory€practice€for€an€employer€or€an€employee€organization€Ð ¾ Ð(a)€to€establish€or€pursue€a€policy€or€practice,€or(b)€to€enter€into€an€agreementÐ ¤ô Ðaffecting€recruitment,€referral,€hiring,€promotion,€training,€apprenticeship,€transferÐ Š Ú Ðor€any€other€matter€relating€to€employment€or€prospective€employment,€that€deprivesÐ p!À  Ðor€tends€to€deprive€an€individual€or€class€of€individuals€of€any€employmentÐ V"¦! Ðopportunities€on€a€prohibited€ground€of€discrimination.€of€the€Canadian€HumanÐ <#Œ" ÐRights€Act.€On€9€September€1985,€the€investigator€at€the€Canadian€Human€RightsÐ "$r# ÐCommission€submitted€his€òòInvestigation€Reportóó€to€the€Commission,€recommendingÐ %X $ Ðthat€the€complaint€be€dismissed€as,€in€his€opinion,€CPR€had€established€a€òòbona€fideÐ î%>!% Ðoccupational€requirementóó€within€the€meaning€of€paragraph€14(a)€of€the€CanadianÐ Ô&$"& ÐHuman€Rights€Act.€On€18€February€1986,€the€Commission€decided€to€dismiss€theÐ º' #' Ðcomplaint€on€the€same€ground.€In€its€letter€to€the€author,€the€Commission€alsoÐ  (ð#( Ðinformed€the€author€that€he€did€have€the€opportunity€to€apply€for€judicial€review€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ðits€decision€by€the€Federal€Court,€and€suggested€that€a€lawyer€be€consulted€if€heÐ l*¼%* Ðchose€to€seek€such€review.€ÐR+¢&+4ü!4ü! ÐÌ2.5€The€author€did€not€apply€for€judicial€review€to€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal€before€theÐ -n(- Ðexpiration€of€the€deadline€for€filing€a€notice€of€appeal€to€the€Court,€but€did€file€a€notice€ofÐ ° Ðmotion€for€an€extension€of€time€to€file€an€application€on€6€June€1986,€some€three€monthsÐ –æ Ðafter€the€expiration€of€the€deadline.€On€26€June€1986,€the€motion€was€rejected€by€a€judge€ofÐ |Ì Ðthe€Federal€Court€of€Appealòò€1óó.€An€extension€would€be€granted€where€there€was€material€toÐ b² Ðsatisfy€the€Court€that€there€was€some€justification€for€not€having€brought€the€applicationÐ H˜ Ðwithin€the€10„days€period,€and€there€was€an€arguable€case€for€setting€aside€the€order€inÐ . ~ Ðquestion.€In€the€author's€case,€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal€dismissed€the€motion€"on€theÐ  d Ðground€that€the€material€on€file€[did]€not€disclose€any€reasonable€ground€for€challenging€theÐ ú J Ðvalidity€of€the€decision€that€the€applicant€wishes€to€attack.".€Ð à 0 ÐÌòòThe€complaintóó€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ3.€The€author€alleges€to€be€a€victim€of€a€discrimination€on€the€ground€of€physical€handicapÐ xÈ  Ðin€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant€because€of€the€termination€of€his€employment€byÐ ^®  ÐCPR€in€January€1980.€The€author€claims€that€the€decision€of€the€Canadian€Human€RightsÐ D”  ÐCommission€was€flawed€as€the€author's€inability€to€perform€the€required€job€duties€were€notÐ *z  Ðsubstantiated.€In€this€regard,€the€author€argues€that€CPR€did€not€avail€itself€of€the€option€ofÐ ` Ðhaving€the€author's€medical€condition€reevaluated€by€an€independent€medical€body,€and€thatÐ öF Ðthe€Commission€in€its€investigation€failed€to€consult€with€the€United€Transportation€UnionÐ Ü, Ðor€other€bodies€to€verify€the€author's€version€of€the€job€requirements.€Furthermore,€the€authorÐ Â Ðclaims€that€it€was€the€practice€of€CPR€at€the€time€to€permit€other€persons€who€could€notÐ ¨ø Ðperform€certain€physically€demanding€tasks€to€remain€employed€and€to€leave€such€tasks€forÐ ŽÞ Ðthose€able.€Ð tÄ ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€observations€on€admissibility€and€the€author's€comments€thereonóó€Ð @ ÐÌ4.1€In€its€submission€of€17€December€1997,€the€State€party€argues€several€grounds€ofÐ  \ Ðinadmissibility.€Firstly,€the€State€party€submits€that€the€communication€should€be€heldÐ òB Ðinadmissible€because€of€the€undue€delay€in€bringing€it€before€the€Committee.€The€State€partyÐ Ø( Ðnotes€that€the€communication€relates€to€factual€events€that€occurred€between€1966€and€1980,Ð ¾ Ðthat€the€final€domestic€decision€was€passed€on€26€June€1986€and€that€the€communicationÐ ¤ô Ðonly€was€submitted€almost€10€years€later,€on€17€April€1996.€Ð Š Ú ÐÌ4.2€The€State€party€adduces€two€reasons€why€the€delay€should€lead€to€inadmissibility.Ð V"¦! ÐFirstly,€it€is€argued€that€the€delay€can€create€a€problem€in€ascertaining€the€facts.€In€theÐ <#Œ" Ðpresent€case,€the€State€party€notes€that€the€author€makes€certain€factual€allegations€aboutÐ "$r# Ðincidents€said€to€have€happened€in€the€1970s€which€would€require€verification€(e.g.Ð %X $ Ðregarding€the€author's€employment€with€CPR€from€1974„1976,€his€claim€to€the€Workmen'sÐ î%>!% ÐCompensation€Board€in€1977€and€the€complete€medical€report€requested€by€CPR€on€17Ð Ô&$"& ÐDecember€1979).€The€State€party€explains€that€it€will€not€make€any€detailed€submissions€onÐ º' #' Ðthe€facts€at€the€admissibility€stage,€but€is€concerned€that€if€the€communication€were€toÐ  (ð#( Ðproceed€to€the€merits€stage,€it€would€be€difficult€to€establish€a€satisfactory€factual€record€soÐ †)Ö$) Ðlong€after€the€events€in€question.€It€is€submitted€that€this€would€prejudice€the€State€party€andÐ l*¼%* Ðaffect€the€assessment€by€the€Committee€of€the€merits€of€the€communication.€Secondly,€theÐ R+¢&+ ÐState€party€argues€that€although€the€language€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant€remains€the€sameÐ 8,ˆ', Ðas€when€the€events€relating€to€this€communication€occurred,€fundamental€developmentsòò€2óóÐ -n(- Ðhave€taken€place€both€domestically€and€internationally€since€then€in€relation€to€the€equalityÐ ° Ðrights€of€persons€with€disabilities€which€may€affect€the€interpretation€and€application€ofÐ –æ Ðarticle€26€in€matters€affecting€them.€In€this€regard,€the€State€party€also€mentions€that€theseÐ |Ì Ðdevelopments€may€affect€the€position€the€State€party€would€regard€as€appropriate€to€putÐ b² Ðforward€in€litigation€involving€persons€with€disabilities.€Ð H˜ ÐÌ4.3€The€State€party€argues€that,€even€though€the€Optional€Protocol€does€not€contain€anÐ  d Ðexpress€time€limit,€a€communication€can€be€held€inadmissible€on€the€ground€of€undue€delay,Ð ú J Ðeither€pursuant€to€article€3€as€an€abuse€of€the€right€of€submission,€or€on€the€basis€of€theÐ à 0 Ðinterpretive€powers€of€the€Committee€regarding€its€role€under€the€Optional€Protocol.€WithÐ Æ   Ðregard€to€article€3,€the€State€party€argues€that€when€the€circumstances€are€such€that€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðability€of€a€State€party€to€exonerate€itself€is€prejudiced€because€of€the€unreasonable€delay€ofÐ ’â  Ðthe€complaint,€the€communication€ought€to€be€inadmissible€as€an€abuse€of€the€right€toÐ xÈ  Ðsubmission,€given€that€there€was€no€impediment€in€making€a€timely€submission€to€theÐ ^®  ÐHuman€Rights€Committee.€The€State€party€makes€reference€to€the€Committee's€finding€inÐ D”  ÐCommunication€No.€72/1980,€K.L.€v.€Denmark,€and€submits€that,€as€in€that€case,€the€factÐ *z  Ðthat€the€author€took€domestic€actions€(see€para.4.6€below)€at€the€same€time€that€he€wasÐ ` Ðpursuing€his€case€before€the€Committee€and€that€he€has€not€adequately€substantiated€hisÐ öF Ðclaims€are€additional€relevant€factors€when€considering€this€issue.€Ð Ü, ÐÌ4.4€As€an€alternative€basis€for€declaring€the€communication€inadmissible€because€of€undueÐ ¨ø Ðdelay,€the€State€party€notes€that€the€Committee€on€occasionòò€3óó€has€held€that,€implicit€in€its€roleÐ ŽÞ Ðunder€the€Optional€Protocol,€is€the€power€of€performing€certain€functions€necessary€to€thatÐ tÄ Ðrole€but€that€are€not€explicitly€conferred€on€it€by€the€Optional€Protocol€or€the€Covenant.€TheÐ Zª ÐState€party€submits€that€such€an€approach€should€be€taken€here,€thus€enabling€the€CommitteeÐ @ Ðto€find€unduly€delayed€communications€inadmissible.€Ð &v ÐÌ4.5€The€State€party€submits€that€the€communication€should€be€held€inadmissible€also€underÐ òB Ðarticle€5,€paragraph€2(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€non„exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies.Ð Ø( ÐIn€this€regard,€the€State€party€argues€that€a€judicial€review€of€the€decision€of€the€CanadianÐ ¾ ÐHuman€Rights€Commission€by€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal€would€have€been€an€effectiveÐ ¤ô Ðand€available€remedy€as€the€Federal€Court€is€empowered€to€set€aside€a€decision€of€theÐ Š Ú ÐCommission€where€the€Federal€Court€finds€that€the€Commission's€decision€was€based€"onÐ p!À  Ðan€erroneous€finding€of€fact€that€it€made€in€a€perverse€or€capricious€manner€or€without€regardÐ V"¦! Ðof€the€material€before€itòò€4óó."€There,€it€is€submitted,€the€author€could€have€argued,€as€he€hasÐ <#Œ" Ðargued€in€the€present€communication,€that€the€decision€of€the€Commission€was€flawedÐ "$r# Ðbecause€it€was€not€substantiated€by€the€evidence€nor€based€upon€sufficient€investigation.€IfÐ %X $ Ðthe€author€had€been€successful€in€his€arguments,€the€Federal€Court€would€have€remitted€theÐ î%>!% Ðmatter€back€to€the€Commission€for€further€investigation€into€his€allegations€of€unlawfulÐ Ô&$"& Ðdiscrimination.€It€is€submitted€that€the€author€failed€to€avail€himself€of€this€domestic€remedyÐ º' #' Ðby€his€own€inaction,€as€he€did€not€apply€for€judicial€review€in€a€timely€fashion.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ4.6€The€State€party€also€states€that€the€decision€of€the€Federal€Court€of€26€June€1986€was€aÐ l*¼%* Ð"final€or€other€judgment€of€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal"€within€the€meaning€of€section€31(3)Ð R+¢&+ Ðof€the€Federal€Court€Act€which€thus€could€have€been€appealed€to€the€Supreme€Court€ofÐ 8,ˆ', ÐCanada.€In€this€regard,€the€State€party€explains€that€on€8€August€1996,€ten€years€after€theÐ -n(- ÐÔ_Ôdecisions€of€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Commission€and€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal,€andÐ ° Ðafter€the€submission€of€the€present€communication,€the€author€wrote€to€the€Federal€Court€ofÐ –æ ÐAppeal€requesting€an€order€setting€aside€the€former€decisions.€On€26€August€1996,€the€CourtÐ |Ì Ðdismissed€this€application€on€the€ground€that€it€had€no€jurisdiction€to€hear€it.€Then€on€27Ð b² ÐJanuary€1997,€the€federal€Department€of€Justice€received€a€copy€of€documents€signed€by€theÐ H˜ Ðauthor€dated€21€January€1997€apparently€seeking€an€extension€of€time€to€apply€for€leave€toÐ . ~ Ðappeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€from€the€denial€of€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal€ofÐ  d Ðan€extension€of€time€to€apply€for€judicial€review€of€the€decision€of€the€Canadian€HumanÐ ú J ÐRights€Commission€in€1986.€The€State€Party€states€that€these€documents€have€not,€however,Ð à 0 Ðbeen€officially€served€on€the€Attorney€General€of€Canada,€nor€have€they€been€registered€inÐ Æ   Ðthe€Supreme€Court€of€Canada.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ4.7€The€State€party€also€submits€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€article€1€ofÐ xÈ  Ðthe€Optional€Protocol€because€it€does€not€allege€a€violation€of€the€Covenant€by€Canada,€butÐ ^®  Ðrather€appears€to€be€directed€against€the€conduct€of€a€private€entity,€Canadian€PacificÐ D”  ÐRailways,€as€the€author€alleges€that€he€was€the€victim€of€discrimination€on€the€ground€ofÐ *z  Ðdisability€by€this€private€corporation,€the€capital€stock€of€which€is€owned€by€private€parties.Ð ` ÐThe€State€party€states€that€CPR€is€not€a€part€or€agent€of€the€Government€of€Canada€or€of€anyÐ öF Ðother€components€of€the€Canadian€State,€such€as€a€provincial€or€territorial€government,€andÐ Ü, Ðsubmits€that€the€actions€of€CPR€cannot€be€attributed€to€Canada€or€engage€the€responsibilityÐ Â Ðof€the€Government€of€Canada€under€the€Covenant.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ4.8€If,€in€the€alternative,€the€author€regards€his€complaint€as€against€the€Canadian€HumanÐ tÄ ÐRights€Commission€for€what€he€describes€as€its€"flawed"€decision€in€his€case,€then€the€StateÐ Zª Ðparty€submits€that€a€disagreement€with€the€decision€of€a€domestic€tribunal€in€a€privateÐ @ Ðdispute€is€not€sufficient€to€engage€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee.€In€thisÐ &v Ðregard,€the€State€party€notes€that€the€author€has€not€alleged€a€violation€of€his€rights€underÐ  \ Ðarticle€14€of€the€Covenant€by€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Commission,€nor€adduced€factsÐ òB Ðthat€would€suggest€such€a€violation.€Ð Ø( ÐÌ4.9€Finally,€the€State€party€submits€that€the€author's€claim€of€a€violation€of€article€26€of€theÐ ¤ô ÐCovenant€should€be€held€inadmissible€under€article€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€lack€ofÐ Š Ú Ðsubstantiation.€The€State€party€argues€that€the€Investigation€Report€to€the€Canadian€HumanÐ p!À  ÐRights€Commission€gives€a€detailed€statement€of€the€facts€and€concludes€that€because€of€hisÐ V"¦! Ðknee€and€back€problems€the€author€had€a€physical€handicap€which€gave€rise€to€a€safetyÐ <#Œ" Ðhazard€in€his€probationary€employment€as€a€trainman,€and€that€it€was€not€feasible€to€makeÐ "$r# Ðreasonable€accommodation€for€his€handicap.€On€this€basis,€the€investigator€concluded€thatÐ %X $ Ða€òòbona€fide€occupational€requirementóó€had€been€established€within€the€meaning€of€sectionÐ î%>!% Ð14(a)€of€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Act.€After€reviewing€the€report,€the€Canadian€HumanÐ Ô&$"& ÐRights€Commission€reached€the€same€conclusion.€Assuming€that€these€conclusion€wereÐ º' #' Ðaccurate,€the€State€party€submits€that€a€òòprima€facieóó€violation€of€article€26€has€not€beenÐ  (ð#( Ðdisclosed.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ5.€In€his€comments€on€the€State€party's€submission,€the€author€argues€that€the€State€partyÐ R+¢&+ Ðfailed€to€mention€new€and€compelling€evidence€which€came€to€light€in€1997€and€1998,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðevidence€which€should€have€been€available€to€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€CommissionÐ -n(- Ðduring€the€period€of€investigation,€i.e.€1981„86.€The€author€implies€that€the€evidence€inÐ ° Ðquestion,€three€statements€from€the€United€Transportation€Union,€one€statement€from€theÐ –æ Ðformer€investigator€of€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Commission€and€records€from€theÐ |Ì ÐWorkers'€Compensation€Board,€shows€that€other€individuals€suffering€similar€injuries€wereÐ b² Ðaccommodated€for€with€knee€or€back€braces€and/or€were€allowed€to€work€with€imposedÐ H˜ Ðrestrictions.€The€author€submits€that€this€clearly€establishes€a€violation€of€sections€7€and€10Ð . ~ Ðof€the€Human€Rights€Act.€Ð  d ÐÌòòIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€Committeeóó€Ð à 0 ÐÌ6.1€Before€considering€any€claim€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ ¬ ü  ÐCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€notÐ ’â  Ðit€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ6.2€The€author€has€alleged€to€be€a€victim€of€a€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant€on€whatÐ D”  Ðappears€to€be€two€different€grounds;€1)€that€CPR€could€have€provided€reasonableÐ *z  Ðaccommodation€for€his€physical€injuries€and€that€the€lack€of€such€accommodation€constitutesÐ ` Ðdiscrimination€on€the€ground€of€physical€handicap,€and€2)€that€the€Canadian€Human€RightsÐ öF ÐCommission,€mistakenly,€considered€him€to€suffer€a€physical€condition€which€justifiedÐ Ü, ÐCPR's€decision€to€dismiss€as€a€trainman.€Ð  ÐÌ6.3€The€Committee€notes,€however,€as€explained€by€the€State€party,€that€the€author€has€notÐ ŽÞ Ðtaken€the€necessary€steps€to€appeal€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal's€decision€of€26€June€1986Ð tÄ Ðto€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada.€The€Committee€finds€that€this€was€an€available€andÐ Zª Ðeffective€remedy€and€that€the€communication€therefore€is€inadmissible€under€article€5,Ð @ Ðparagraph€2(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€for€non„exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies.Ð &v ÐConsequently,€the€Committee€need€not€address€the€other€arguments€set€forth€by€the€StateÐ  \ Ðparty€against€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€Ð òB ÐÌ7.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:€Ð ¾ ÐÌ(a)€That€the€communication€is€inadmissible;€Ð Š Ú ÐÌ(b)€That€this€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€State€party€and€to€the€author.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌ_________________€Ð "$r# ÐÌ*The€following€members€of€the€Committee€participated€in€the€examination€of€the€presentÐ î%>!% Ðcommunication:€Mr.€Ô_ÔAbdelfattah€Amor,€Mr.€NisukeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAndoÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ô_ÔPrafullachandraÔ_Ô€N.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÔ_ÔBhagwatiÔ_Ô,€Ms.€Christine€Ô_ÔChanetÔ_Ô,€Lord€Ô_ÔColvilleÔ_Ô,€Ms.€Elizabeth€Ô_ÔEvattÔ_Ô,€Ms.€Pilar€Ô_ÔGaitnÔ_Ô€deÐ º' #' ÐÔ_ÔPomboÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ô_ÔEckartÔ_Ô€Klein,€Mr.€David€Ô_ÔKretzmerÔ_Ô,€Ms.€Cecilia€Medina€Ô_ÔQuirogaÔ_Ô,€Mr.€FaustoÐ  (ð#( ÐÔ_ÔPocarÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Martin€Ô_ÔScheininÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ô_ÔHipð;ðlitoÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSolariÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔYrigoyenÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Roman€Ô_ÔWieruszewskiÔ_Ô€andÐ †)Ö$) ÐMr.€Ô_ÔAbdallahÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔZakhiaÔ_Ô.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ**Pursuant€to€rule€85€of€the€Committee's€rules€of€procedure,€Mr.€Maxwell€Ô_ÔYaldenÔ_Ô€did€notÐ 8,ˆ', Ðparticipate€in€the€examination€of€the€case.€Ð -n(- Ї1/€€With€regard€to€the€author's€notice€of€motion€for€an€extension€of€time€to€file€for€judicialÐ ° Ðreview€of€6€June€1986,€the€State€party€explains€that€a€judge€of€the€Federal€Court€of€AppealÐ –æ Ðwas€empowered€to€entertain€such€motions€and€grant€an€extension€of€time.Ð |Ì ÐÌ2/€€The€State€party€gives€several€examples:€the€adoption€of€the€Convention€on€the€Rights€ofÐ H˜ Ðthe€Child€in€1989€as€the€first€international€convention€expressly€to€include€disability€as€aÐ . ~ Ðprohibited€ground€of€discrimination;€Section€15€of€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€andÐ  d ÐFreedoms€of€April€1985;€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada's€judgment€in€Eaton€v.€Brant€CountyÐ ú J ÐBoard€of€Education€of€1997;€Bill€S„5,€an€Act€to€amend€the€Canada€Evidence€Act,€theÐ à 0 ÐCriminal€Code,€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Act€and€other€Acts€in€respect€of€persons€withÐ Æ   Ðdisabilities.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ3/€€As€an€example,€the€State€party€mentions€that€the€majority€of€the€Committee€members€inÐ xÈ  Ða€general€debate€in€1983€concluded€that€the€Committee€might€on€an€exceptional€basisÐ ^®  Ðreconsider€its€views€on€the€merits,€although€there€were€no€express€provisions€to€this€effectÐ D”  Ðin€the€Optional€Protocol;€Report€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee,€1983,€pp€93„94,€para.€391„Ð *z  Ð396.Ð ` ÐÌ4/€€Federal€Court€Act,€Ô_ÔR.S.C.Ô_Ô€1970,€section€28(1)(c).Ð Ü, ÐÌ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€Spanish€text€being€the€original€version.Ð ¨ø ÐSubsequently€to€be€translated€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee'sÐ ŽÞ Ðannual€report€to€the€General€Assembly.]€Ð tÄ ÐÓ©Ó