Sentences with phrase «comparator group analysis»

Comparator group analysis as understood and applied in Auton, Hodge, and in the decision of the Court below, is designed to determine whether a benefit scheme treats similarly situated people differently.

Attempting to apply an elaborate comparator group analysis poses risk to any discrimination complaint.

For purposes of conducting the comparator group analysis, the Court defined the benefit in issue, even more narrowly, as the specific accommodation requested.

Comparator group analysis, with its focus on finding differential treatment, is intended to serve a very particular objective of anti-discrimination and equality guarantees, that of preventing difference, or untrue characteristics, from being taken into account.

Applying a model of comparator group analysis that is intended to determine whether there has been differential treatment of similarly situated groups is antithetical to the duty to accommodate.

In other words, it is unnecessary to conduct a detailed comparator group analysis in an accommodation case.

If the benefit is narrowly defined, and there is no one else who receives it, the entire comparator group analysis unravels.

... the comparator group analysis is inappropriate because a person with a disability who seeks accommodation of his or her needs does not seek to be treated the same way that others are treated.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As stated above, CCD's submissions concentrate on the comparator group analysis.

The Supreme Court of Canada has never applied a comparator group analysis to an accommodation case.

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.»

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.

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.

This model of comparator group analysis entails a search for evidence of differential treatment of a similarly situated comparator group.

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.

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.»

However, it must be recognized that the issue of the service in question and the comparator group analysis are not strictly compartmentalized.

Central to the Court's decision is the application of a comparator group analysis.

However, a very closely related issue — that of identifying the benefit in issue — also arises as part of the comparator group analysis.

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.

Not exact matches

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.

Separate meta - analyses were carried out for different comparator groups.