HTML

Review of BC Human Rights Tribunal decision in Mackenzie v Jace Holdings, 2012. Tribunal found that employer failed to fulfill procedural duty to inquire whether accommodation was needed for employee's mental health, thus, discriminating against her. 

Case Commentary on Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp, 2017 SCC 30; importance of policy drafting and construction of dismissal letters. 

Article reviews some recent cases were significantly higher awards were granted than typical and much longer periods of backpay, over 10 years’ worth, than would be awarded in courts for similar wrongful termination. In one case the tribunal also ordered reinstatement, equalization of pension and CPP and reimbursement for out of pocket medical expenses. In another case a significant $512,000 in future wages. 

Elk Valley analysis, prima facie case of descrimination was not made out, in which an employee did not disclose his cocaine use; authors provide a succinct section of 'implications for employers', in which safety, policy, and clarity (in termination letter) is highly valued within employer and employee interactions. 

Summary of the Hydro-Quebéc case. The goal of accommodation is to ensure employee who is capable of working can without undue hardship to the employer. The employer is not obliged to change the conditions of work in a fundamental way. Where the employee has had extensive absenteeism and is unlikely that the employee can not return to work without continued absentee issues constitutes undue hardship. 

Author describes the reluctance of many employees to disclose thier mental health diagnoses due to workplace stigmatization; examines whether currently prescribed by Canadian law affords proper accommodation to such individuals; outlines the need for a seperation between institutional inclusion and social inclusion within the process. 

Court awarded damages for breach of human rights in addition to damages for failure to provide reasonable notice. Held that the employees injury was at least part of the reason for termination and therefore the employee had been discriminated against  as well the employer was disingenuous at times failing in its duty to act fairly in dismissing an employee.

The Board of Inquiry held that on-call weekend and overnight work was a bona fide occupational requirement and undue hardship is met, where the employer has made a good faith effort to accommodate the employee. The employee's proposed accommodation to his work schedule was found to be too great a burden on other teammates and the employers need to manage the workforce. 

The court held the employer could conclude there was no reasonable likelihood of the employee returning to work within a reasonable period of time, based on the extension of Long Term Disability  Benefits. Being on Long Term Disability Benefits does not preclude an employee from being terminated for being absent.

Article briefly describes the facts in a seminal case on harassment and poisoned work environment. Discusses vicarious liability of the company for a manager's harassment of a deaf employee, compounded by the fact that the manager was the guiding mind of the corporation. Article notes that this is the first known civil case to apply Human Rights Code damages in addition to civil damages.