Rights tribunal says immigrant who failed engineering exam three times was discriminated against
2014/02/20 1 Comment
Another example of reasonable accommodation gone wrong. While it is valid to question whether Canadian requirements are completely objective or do have some inadvertent bias, the reality of working in Canada requires common standards. Given that the person in question failed the exams three times, hard to accept that he had not been given an adequate chance:
It’s all well and good to laugh. Unlike many of the poor schmoes human rights tribunals put through the wringer, the engineers have the money to defend themselves. APEGGA will appeal the ruling, and some superior court will hopefully blow it to smithereens. But these clay pigeons cost a lot of money. At the end of the day, legalities aside, Mr. Jiwaji wants to ensure the employment of an incompetent engineer under the banner of human rights. In the court of popular opinion, it’s not clear how long Canada’s current human rights apparatus can survive decision-making like that.
About Andrew
Multicultural Meanderings 
My own bias, and it’s only a bias, is that the human rights tribunals should be abolished. Many of their members seem motivated by ideology, not law, and the procedures, in terms of common law and human rights, leave much to be desired. And some statements that come from personnel who head up human rights tribunals show, for example, no understanding of the concept of free speech – or no awareness, as in this case perhaps of the dangers, say, of getting someone to design, say, a bridge who has perhaps no idea whether it will fall down or not.