Duties and Responsibilities in the Accommodation Process

The employee needs to communicate more than a desire to return to work. The employee must demonstrate ability to return to work to trigger the duty to accommodate. The court found that the employer was correct to treat the relationship as being frustrated, when the employee did not supply twice requested medical information. 

A look at addiction and substance abuse in the workplace, with focus areas on the recent legalization of marijuana, and the duty to accommodate principles. 

A brief discussion of pre-employment drug testing. Discusses the law on when a drug dependency is required to be accommodated, the justification for drug testing, and the workplace health and safety plans to support testing. It discusses when pre-employment, pre-access, random drug testing and zero tolerance policies are discriminatory. It discusses the implications of medical cannabis and recreational use. Discusses a decision where the lack of cannabis testing that could determine impairment was found to be undue hardship.

Commentary on Alberta CA case Kellogg Brown & Root Canada, analysis of post job offer but pre-employment drug testing policy and casual cannabis used for disability; justification of testing for drugs in 'safety sensitive' positions. 

Review of Complex Services Inc v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, alerting readers to the employee's responsibility to provide supporting medical documentation as part of the accommodation process; casino employer creating substantial attempt to clarify nature of disability. 

Looks at the perspective of persons with disabilities to identify the factors that influence their employee duty of disclosure; concerns that are considered when deciding to disclose, such as the unfair negative stigma often received, isolation or lowered expectations; highlighting barriers in the workplace that should be removed in order to address and circumvent such disclosure considerations. 

Author discusses Central Okanagan School District v Renaud (1992) and encouraged cooperation between unions and employers to accommodate employee disabilities; however, subsequent tribunals have interpreted this as holding unions co-liable; author calls on SCC to clarify Renaud.

Contrasts two cases of non disclosure until after termination, with different results in respect to whether the employer was required to accommodate the employee. Context is important.

Outlines what is required by an employee to disclose as part of the accommodation process, as well as the employer's duty to maintain privacy of medical documents provided. 

Conference presentation paper as part of the Workplace Rights & Accommodations Forum 2016, discussing the collaborative process involved in the duty to accommodate, with a focus on the required nature and extent of information disclosure.