Discrimination and Language

I read a recent Ontario Human Rights tribunal case in which the Tribunal dismissed a complaint by a worker who had alleged discrimination when she was fired during the training process because her French was poor.  It’s called Taylor v. Oraclepoll Research.
It’s a very short decision because the employee pleaded the wrong prohibited ground.  She checked ‘disability’ on the form, and not speaking a language proficiently is not a disability within the meaning of the Code.  So the Tribunal simply ruled there was no discrimination on the basis of disability, and no other prohibited ground was named in the complaint.  So you lose.
Does this mean it is fine for an employer to dismiss or refuse to hire someone who does not speak a certain language to a level desired by the employer?
The answer is no, not always.  What the Tribunal could perhaps have done is look beyond the fact that the worker checked the wrong box on the form  and ask if there was discrimination contrary to the Code. ‘Language’ is not a prohibited ground in Ontario, but ethnic origin, place of origin, and ancestry are, and a person’s language skills are often tied to those grounds pretty directly.  So a requirement to speak French will often discriminate indirectly against people from ‘places’ where French is not spoken, or from ethnic origins where no one speaks French.  Is it discrimination on the basis of place of origin for a company to refuse employment to an Anglophone from Toronto or some other location where a language other than French is dominant?  I couldn’t find a case, but I’d think that would be a pretty strong argument.  What do you think?  The Human Rights Commission seems to suggest as much in their paper on language discrimination.
If a language requirement does indirectly discriminate, then the Code prohibits an employer from asking about it in a job application form.  The employer may ask about language skills in an interview if language is a ‘genuine and reasonable’ requirement for working in a ‘special service organization’ as identified in section 24(1)(a), or language proficiency is a bona fide occupational requirement and there it is not possible to accommodate the worker to enable them to perform the job (within the meaning of the section 11 ‘constructive dismissal’ provisions).
The key point is that the burden would usually shift to the employer to justify the language proficiency requirement once the worker had established that the requirement indirectly discriminates against them due to their ‘place or origin’, ethnicity, or ancestry.  That exploration never occurred in the Taylor case because the worker didn’t have the knowledge to plead one of these other grounds of discrimination rather than disability.
Note that in the Taylor case, the Tribunal directed the worker to places where she may get assistance in learning how to select a proper ground to plead.  She may go learn she should plead a different ground and refile the complaint.
Do you think the Tribunal should help unrepresented workers by assisting them in identifying the proper ground of discrimination to plead?  If the goal is to address discrimination in employment, do you think the Tribunal could have just saved this step and considered whether the employer’s requirement violated one of the other grounds the employee could have pleaded?