In Lidkea v. Correctional Service of Canada, 2026 CHRT 19, released on March 12, the CHRT ruled that a deaf inmate was discriminated against when CSC repeatedly failed to provide adequate sign-language interpretation during his incarceration and supervision while he was living in a halfway house.
The tribunal held that CSC had been “unquestionably reckless in its treatment” of the complainant.
“It knew that he required accommodation to effectively communicate with CSC staff and others but neglected to provide those services to him.… Even considering some of the structural and operational difficulties in securing ASL interpretation services, more could have been done,” wrote tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis.
The tribunal ordered systemic remedies requiring CSC to provide deaf inmates ASL (American Sign Language) interpretation through video relay service, video remote interpreting or live interpretation for a range of circumstances, including meetings that affect an inmate’s liberty interests.
Interpretation must also be provided for meetings with medical or health services, correctional programming, employment and social programs, and meetings with legal counsel.
The order requires these remedies to be implemented as soon as practicable and no later than 12 months from the decision.
The tribunal also ordered the implementation of a VRS- or VRI-based communications system providing deaf inmates access reasonably similar to the inmate telephone system within the same timeframe.
The order also requires deaf inmates to be given access to effective communication with other persons for at least two hours per day.
The complainant, Timothy Lidkea, is deaf. He first entered the federal correctional system in April 2018 when he was incarcerated at Bowden Institution in Alberta. He testified that throughout his incarceration he faced significant barriers communicating with correctional staff and accessing information because of his deafness.
Lidkea said he was not provided with interpretation and other communication supports consistently, and that this affected his ability to understand institutional rules, communicate with staff and access programs and services available to other inmates.
He testified that he had difficulty participating in meetings, medical appointments and other institutional processes because of the lack of effective communication supports.
Lidkea also testified that he was sexually assaulted by a cellmate during his incarceration and that communication barriers related to his deafness made it difficult for him to report the incident, after which he was returned to the same cell.
He further testified that his first post-suspension interview with a parole officer occurred without interpretation after a video interpreter connection failed, and that the officer later prepared a report recommending the revocation of his parole before their next meeting with interpretation.
He filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that Correctional Service Canada failed to accommodate his disability in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The tribunal permitted the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Canadian Association of the Deaf to jointly make submissions as interested parties.
CSC admitted it did not “completely and reasonably” accommodate Lidkea while he was in its care and custody during his incarceration or while he was under supervision in the community, contrary to s. 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The tribunal found that barriers to adequate ASL interpretation extended throughout Lidkea’s interactions with CSC.
The tribunal noted it could order compensation of up to $20,000 for pain and suffering caused by discriminatory practices.
It ruled that Lidkea’s circumstances approached the worst cases for which the tribunal typically reserves the maximum amount of compensation.
“As a Deaf inmate without the ability to effectively communicate with others, especially in his own language, the isolation that Mr. Lidkea experienced was significant. The CSC’s healthcare professionals who assessed him observed that he was developing suicidal ideation,” the tribunal wrote.
The tribunal awarded Lidkea $18,000 for pain and suffering, with interest from the date of the complaint.
It also awarded $17,500 in special compensation with interest based on a finding that CSC’s conduct was reckless.
The tribunal ruled that while there was no evidence CSC wilfully discriminated against the complainant, it was nevertheless “unquestionably reckless” in its treatment of him.
In addition to the compensation awards, the tribunal ordered individual remedies for Lidkea.
The tribunal ordered that the CSC must provide him with ASL interpretation for meetings affecting his liberty interests, medical and mental health appointments, correctional programming, and meetings with legal counsel while he is incarcerated.
It also ordered that Lidkea be provided interpretation for supervision meetings and support services provided through the halfway houses when he is on conditional release.
Counsel for the complainant, Brodie Noga of JFK Law LLP, said the decision was an important recognition of long-standing discrimination faced by deaf people in federal prisons.
“The tribunal found that for years, Correctional Services Canada recklessly failed to accommodate Mr. Lidkea by not providing ASL interpretation for a range of services, including intake interviews, health care and rehabilitation programs,” he told Law360 Canada.
He added that the decision also acknowledges the extreme isolation experienced by deaf prisoners and requires CSC to ensure they receive a minimum level of meaningful human interaction each day.
“We hope the remedies ordered in this case will lead to real and lasting change,” he added.
Lisa Crossley of the West Coast Prison Justice Society, Jessica Magonet of West Coast Environmental Law and Katie Ussher of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP also acted as counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the CSC were Edward Burnet, Samson Rapley and Fred Wan of the Department of Justice Canada.
Counsel for the CCD and CAD were Connor Bildfell, Nico Rullmann and Daniel Siracusa of McCarthy Tétrault LLP and Morgan Rowe of Ravenlaw LLP.
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Karunjit Singh at karunjit.singh@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5859.