Sentences with phrase «comparator group»
The phrase "comparator group" refers to a specific set of people, companies, or entities that are used as a reference point for comparison. It helps in assessing or evaluating the performance, characteristics, or outcomes of a particular subject by comparing it to similar or related subjects in the comparator group. Full definition
CCD respectfully submits that the Court erred in employing a model of comparator group analysis that is ill suited to the adjudication of a disability accommodation complaint.
ccdonline.ca
This is exemplified by the Court's adoption of a model of comparator group analysis that is designed to prevent difference from being taken into account.
And Justice Rowles said that she agreed with CCD that it is neither necessary nor helpful to conduct a detailed comparator group analysis in an accommodation case.
Appellate judges often disagree on the appropriate comparator group in equality cases, which has a direct impact on the final outcome.
CCD has intervened in this appeal because it is deeply concerned about the template for comparator group analysis adopted by the lower courts, reducing the right to accommodation to a right to the same treatment or same accommodation that others receive.
As a second comparator group, 38,520 matched individuals were randomly selected from the general population register.
Post-immunization sera from Malian adults who received the 50 µg dose of FMP2.1 / AS02A (but not sera from those who received the 25 µg dose) of the malaria vaccine had significantly greater growth inhibition activity against both 3D7 and FVO parasites than did post-immunization sera from the rabies comparator group in the previous Phase 1 trial [17].
A further 1,000 pupils acted as a partially matched comparator group in five schools.
In R. v. Kapp, the Court also acknowledged that criticism has accrued for the way in which formalism has resurfaced in some of the Court's post-Andrews jurisprudence, «in the form of an artificial comparator group analysis focused on treating likes alike.»
If the benefit is narrowly defined, and there is no one else who receives it, the entire comparator group analysis unravels.
Attempting to apply an elaborate comparator group analysis poses risk to any discrimination complaint.
Finally, bringing a s. 15 Charter claim is costly because of the heavy evidentiary burden in establishing comparator groups and adverse effect discrimination.
While the Supreme Court signalled a shift in its approach to s. 15 issues in Kapp (2008 SCC 41), the issue of the proper comparator group remains important.
It is not necessary to apply a detailed comparator group analysis in an accommodation case.
Applying a model of comparator group analysis that is designed to serve the goal of preventing differences from being taken into account is, inevitably, antithetical to the goal of substantive equality that the duty to accommodate is meant to achieve.
In other words, it is unnecessary to conduct a detailed comparator group analysis in an accommodation case.
If one twin burned 80 calories compared with 100 burned by a comparator group during a workout, then the other twin would likely suffer the same metabolic shortcoming.
Non-white study participants also discontinued treatment due to side effects less frequently than in the comparator group.
Dr Banerjee compared GCSE results in 300 state schools where all pupils had participated in STEM enrichment activities since 2007 to a comparator group of all other secondary schools.
The comparator group had a slightly higher proportion of pupils with free school meals, and the study did not find evidence that STEM interventions improved outcomes for less advantaged students.
Transient local pain and swelling were common and more frequent in all malaria vaccine dosage groups than in the comparator group, but were acceptable to parents of participants.
Without the «comparator group» hurdle, it will be easier for a claimant with a rare disease seeking unproven medication to establish the existence of «differential treatment.»
As the Supreme Court further develops section 15 doctrine and principles — by, for example, moving away from the «comparator group» analysis — the likelihood of success of this type of claim increases.
However, a very closely related issue — that of identifying the benefit in issue — also arises as part of the comparator group analysis.
Central to the Court's decision is the application of a comparator group analysis.
However, it must be recognized that the issue of the service in question and the comparator group analysis are not strictly compartmentalized.
The Tribunal concluded that focusing on a comparator group analysis was unnecessary and unsuitable.
The Court stated: «It is the latter cases that may be conducive to a comparator group analysis because the person with a disability is seeking equal access to the same benefit provided to persons with different disabilities.»
This model of comparator group analysis entails a search for evidence of differential treatment of a similarly situated comparator group.
As Fay Faraday has observed, the similarly situated test was rejected for good reason because the choice of comparator group could easily be manipulated to reinforce relationships of profound inequality.
This other «equally important objective», accommodation of difference, can not be served by this model of comparator group analysis, which, for simplicity, may be referred to as a formal equality model of comparator group analysis.
The Tribunal found in the alternative that, if a comparator group analysis is necessary, the appropriate comparator group is other students in the public school system who do not require additional supports or accommodations to access educational services.
The Supreme Court of Canada has never applied a comparator group analysis to an accommodation case.
As stated above, CCD's submissions concentrate on the comparator group analysis.
Courts and other tribunals interpreting and applying the duty to accommodate have recognized that it is not necessary to engage in a detailed comparator group analysis.
The Court affirmed there was no need for the Tribunal to determine whether Mr. Lane had established a prima facie case of discrimination with reference to a comparator group.
Cases in which the Supreme Court of Canada has applied a comparator group analysis are clearly distinguishable.
The determination that the comparator group was other students with disabilities was not only the result of defining the service in question as special education.
CCD has intervened in this appeal because of a concern that the comparator group analysis adopted by the learned Chambers Judge has the potential to undermine the right of all persons with disabilities to accommodation in a variety of settings.
Because this group comparison is a constant in all accommodation cases, it is unnecessary to engage in a case - by - case search to identify the correct comparator group and, accordingly, inappropriate to apply a detailed comparator group analysis.
Even if the service in issue were defined as public education, on the Auton / Hodge approach to comparator group analysis, if the benefit in issue is defined as the specific accommodation sought, the claim could still fail because the specific accommodation sought is not provided to others.