The Tribunal decided that the complainant established that there had been prima facie discrimination, but that the posting would create undue hardship on the employer. Despite this finding, it awarded the complainant damages and ordered that she be deployed to a country within her top three choices where there were appropriate medical facilities. It also ordered that the health guidelines for postings in Afghanistan be clarified to ensure they did not institute a blanket ban of all who have a chronic medical condition. These orders were made due to the Tribunal’s conclusion that CIDA had not met its “procedural duty” to accommodate the complainant.
The Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (CHRA) states:
15. (1) It is not a discriminatory practice if (a) any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to any employment is established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement;
The Federal Court stated that as the Tribunal had determined that the posting would create undue hardship on the employer, the requirement that those posted to Afghanistan not have type 1 diabetes was a bona fide occupational requirement as referenced in section 15(1) of the CHRA. Since the legislation states that refusals based on a bona fide occupation requirement are not discriminatory, the Tribunal had no authority to award any remedy.
The Federal Court stated the following about the CHRA:
The CHRA does not impose on employers a broad duty to manage and promote the careers of those who are prevented from holding certain positions, or enjoying certain benefits, for entirely justifiable, legitimate, and defensible reasons, simply because they possess a certain characteristic. Rather, the focus of the CHRA is on the negative – it is on the limitation or the refusal, and the removal of those limitations and refusals that unjustifiably limit individuals possessing certain characteristics.
The Tribunal’s decision was quashed in its entirety and the complaint was dismissed.
Click here for a full copy of the Federal Court decision.
Update: On May 20, 2014, this decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal. A copy of that decision may be found here.
Employers are obligated to accommodate disabled employees to the point of undue hardship. Accommodation often requires arranging an employee’s job or workplace duties in such a way that the employee will be able to actively engage in the workforce despite their disability. The duty to accommodate, however, is not limitless. In Katz et al. v […]
read more2019 brought several notable cases impacting employment and labour law. We have put together a brief summary of 10 Canadian decisions we believe employers should be aware of as we head into 2020. 1. Ruston v Keddco MFG (2011) Ltd, 2019 ONCA 125 Ontario Court of Appeal provides an important lesson that overly aggressive tactics […]
read moreOn January 30, 2020, the Nova Scotia Department of Labour and Advanced Education announced its largest increase to Nova Scotia’s minimum wage in a decade. Minimum Wage Increased Starting April 1, 2020, Nova Scotia’s minimum wage will increase from $11.55 to $12.55 an hour. Also, the Nova Scotia Government has announced that it will be […]
read more
