The rulings of the Ontario Human Tribunal often make for interesting--if confounding--reading. This recent one, for example, details the misfortunes of a retail store manager who was in a serious car accident, and who therefore could not do her job. When her employer wasn't as understanding as she had hoped it would be re her plight, she lodged a "human rights" complaint. The basis of her complaint: she claimed she was being "discriminated" against because she was "disabled" (the "disabled" being one of Canada's extra-special protected victim groups). Not surprisingly, the OHRT, a body that's exquisitely attune to such, er, "discrimination," awarded the complainant a whack of cash.
Begging the question: how can it be a case of "discriminating" against a disabled person if the person was able-bodied up until her accident, and only became "disabled" (injured, really) afterwards? Isn't that a wee bit of a stretch, even for Ontario's "human rights" shakedown artistes?