A professional comedian appealed a discrimination finding after a human rights tribunal held that his comedy routines mocking a public figure with a disability violated the right to the safeguard of dignity under the Quebec Charter.
The majority of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the three elements of a discrimination claim under s. 10 of the Quebec Charter had not been established.
The majority found that the distinction was not based on a prohibited ground since the comedian had not targeted the complainant because of his disability but because he was a public figure.
Even if based on a prohibited ground, the majority held that the comedian's comments did not incite others to vilify the complainant or to detest his humanity, nor were they likely to lead to discriminatory treatment.
Four dissenting justices would have dismissed the appeal, finding that the comments constituted a discriminatory interference with the complainant's right to dignity as a child with a disability whose harm was broadly disseminated and deeply harmful.
