In a unanimous ruling on October 6, 2017, a panel of the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that Graeme McCreath, a blind man, was not discriminated against when he and his guide dog, Adrienne, were refused a taxi ride in 2014. Mr. McCreath was refused a ride by a Victoria Taxi cab driver who said he could not allow dogs in his car due to his allergies. In dismissing the appeal and upholding the Tribunal’s decision, the Court stated:

[28]  It follows that I disagree with Mr. McCreath’s argument that the Tribunal erred by failing to separately consider Victoria Taxi’s efforts to accommodate him, without regard to its duty to accommodate the drivers with allergies to animals.  As I have explained, it was necessary for the Tribunal to consider Victoria Taxi’s duty to accommodate the drivers in order to determine whether there were any further reasonable or practical steps that it could have taken to avoid the discrimination against Mr. McCreath.  It was the duty to accommodate drivers with disabilities that provided the bona fide and reasonable justification for the discrimination against Mr. McCreath because any further effort to accommodate Mr. McCreath would have resulted in discrimination against the drivers.  While the evidence regarding the second cab did not go to the issue of whether the discrimination against Mr. McCreath was avoided, it did show Victoria Taxi was genuine in its efforts to minimize the adverse impact on disabled persons who did not inform the dispatcher that they were accompanied by guide dogs and, in any event, this evidence was not central to the Tribunal’s conclusion.

The full decision is available here (link).