The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Quebec Court of Appeal erred in a decision on undue hardship.
In this case the grievor was an employee of Hydro-Québec, who had numerous physical and mental problems, including tendinitis, epicondylitis and bursitis. She had undergone a number of surgical procedures for various problems, took medication for hypothyroidism and hypertension, and had episodes of reactive depression and a mixed personality disorder. During the last seven and a half years that she was employed by Hydro-Québec, between January 1994 and July 2001, she missed 960 days of work. One of the main problems was that her personality disorder resulted in deficient coping mechanisms and, as a result, her relationships with supervisors and co-workers were difficult.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General Hospital) did not discriminate against Alice Brady when it terminated her employment after three years' absence due to disability.
Alice Brady worked for the Montreal General Hospital as a medical secretary, a position she held since 1985. In 2000, she had a nervous breakdown and she was off work almost continuously until 2002. She attempted to return to work on a part-time basis at one point, but the Hospital sent her home because she was disorganized and behaved inappropriately. She was scheduled for a return to full-time work in September 2002, but she was in a car accident in July 2002, which made her unable to work for an indefinite period. The Hospital decided to terminate Ms. Brady's employment as of April 3, 2003, when she was still unable to return to work.
The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously ruled that the City of Montreal and the City of Boisbriand discriminated against Réjeanne Mercier and Palmerino Troilo on the basis of handicap thus confirming the broad interpretation given to the term "handicap" by the Québec Court of Appeal ((1998), 33 C.H.R.R. D/149).
The Supreme Court of Canada dismisses an appeal by Battlefords and District Co-operative Limited from a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld a Board of Inquiry ruling that the Co-operative discriminated against Betty-Lu Clara Gibbs on the ground of mental disability because of the terms of an employment-related insurance plan.
Ms. Gibbs is an employee of the Battlefords and District Co-operative Limited. She became disabled in 1987 as a result of a mental disorder and was unable to work. Ms. Gibbs used up her sick leave, and then was paid benefits under an insurance policy that was part of the benefit package provided to employees pursuant to their collective agreement.
English: The Human Rights Commission has brought a claim against Mr. Coutu and companies under his control seeking $2,060,000 in moral and exemplary damages resulting from the exploitation and violation of the rights of residents of the Centre d'accueil Pavillon Saint-Théophile which occurred between January 1, 1984, and March 31, 1988.
Over a period of many years, until March 31, 1988, Pavillon Saint-Théophile administered a private nursing home with a permit issued by the health and Social Services Department of Quebec. The permit in question authorized Pavillon Saint-Théophile to operate a nursing home with eighty-eight residents. The residents were all handicapped and social welfare recipients.
This is an appeal by the Attorney General of Canada from a decision of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which ruled that James Robinson was discriminated against by the Canadian Armed Forces when he was diagnosed as having "complex partial epilepsy." Because of his disability, the Tribunal found that he was refused continued employment as a Flight Engineer, not given the opportunity to transfer to another trade, and denied the position of Alcohol Counselor. The Tribunal also found that being "seizure-free" was not a bona fide occupational qualification for positions other than Flight Engineer for which Mr. Robinson was qualified.
The Board of Inquiry dismisses the complaint of Darlene Ouimette who alleged that she was discriminated against because of a disability. Ms. Ouimette's employment was terminated because she was absent from work for three days.
Ms. Ouimette was hired on a probationary basis in February 1986 as a Packer for the Plastics Department of Lily Cups Ltd. in Scarborough. If she had successfully completed the 60-day probationary period, Ms. Ouimette would have become a member of the union protected by the current collective agreement. However, Ms. Ouimette was absent for three days during her first 29 working days and she was fired on March 25, 1986. The company's policy was to terminate the employment of any employee who was absent for three days during the probationary period.
Ms. Ouimette testified that on March 2 she was absent because of an asthmatic reaction to aspirin. On March 23 and 24 Ms. Ouimette was absent because she had the flu.