Disability — Ontario Employment Law

D. v. Staff Plus et al

Judicial Review: HRTO Disability Discrimination Dismissal

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability. The Divisional Court applied the Vavilov reasonableness standard, finding that the HRTO's determination that disability was not a factor in the termination was justified, transparent, and intelligible. The court also upheld the HRTO's refusal to admit supplementary evidence and denied the request for reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of the judicial review application.

B. v. Top Medical Transportation Services

Judicial Review: Ankle Injury Disability Claim

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal's jurisdictional decision regarding whether an ankle injury qualifies as a disability under the Human Rights Code. The Divisional Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Tribunal improperly applied a screening standard and failed to conduct the required contextual analysis for determining disability.

B. v. Top Medical Transportation Services

HRTO Judicial Review: Disability Discrimination in Employment

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision concerning an allegation of employment discrimination based on disability. The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the applicant's ankle injury was transitory and did not constitute a disability under the Human Rights Code, and confirmed that the Tribunal's procedural practices and standard of review were fair.

B. v. Bombardier Transportation Canada

A wrongful dismissal case involving an employee terminated by Bombardier Transportation Canada, with disability issues raised as a relevant factor in the dispute.

S. v. Syra Group et al.

Workplace Disability Harassment and Vicarious Liability

This case involves allegations of disability-related harassment in the workplace, raising issues of vicarious liability for the employer. The primary legal focus is on whether the employer is liable for the harassment suffered by the employee.

L. v. Aramark

HRTO Judicial Review: Disability & Reactivation

This is a judicial review application to the Divisional Court concerning the HRTO's dismissal of the applicant's requests to reactivate and reconsider a deferred human rights application. The applicant alleged that the HRTO erred by failing to consider medical evidence of disability regarding time limits and by relying on false information, but the Court found the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, internally coherent, and justified.

M. v. Aramark Food Services Ltd.

Judicial Review: Labour Board Finality & Extension of Time

This is a judicial review application concerning the finality of Labour Board decisions from 2015 and 2016. The applicant sought an extension of time to challenge these decisions seven years later, citing disability-related delays and alleged fresh evidence from recovered memories. The Divisional Court reviewed the application, finding the delay inordinate and unjustifiable, and holding that generalized assertions of fresh recollections were insufficient to disturb the final decisions.

R. v. University of Ottawa

Judicial Review: University Dismissal & Disability Accommodation

This is a judicial review of the University of Ottawa’s Senate Appeals Committee decision to dismiss an applicant from a Pediatric Neurology Residency Training Program. The applicant, diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, alleged the university failed to accommodate their disability and violated procedural fairness. The Divisional Court upheld the SAC's decision as reasonable, finding that full-time supervision would cause undue hardship and that the committee properly relied on medical evidence regarding the risk of unprofessional behaviour.

L. v. Huron Tire

Disability Accommodation & Termination

This case concerns the termination of an employee's employment due to drug addiction, raising issues regarding the employer's duty to accommodate the disability short of undue hardship. The legal analysis involves the intersection of reasonable notice requirements and statutory obligations under the Employment Standards Act.

C. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

HRTO Judicial Review: Duty to Accommodate Disability

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding an employer's procedural duty to accommodate a disabled employee. The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's findings that the employer failed to consider temporary and non-standard jobs, and the reasonableness of the Tribunal's award of $5,000 in general damages for injury to dignity.

R. v. RONA Inc.

Frustration of Contract: Disability Termination After 13 Years

This is a summary judgment motion addressing whether an employer properly terminated an employee with 13 years of service due to permanent disability under the doctrine of frustration of contract. The court examined whether the employer acted reasonably in relying on available medical evidence without further inquiry and whether post-termination evidence could be used to establish frustration at the time of dismissal.

C. v. Katz Group Canada Ltd.

This is a wrongful dismissal case involving an employee with a disability and a summary judgment motion.

N. v. Thunder Bay Orthopaedic Inc.

Wrongful Dismissal: 15 Months Notice Upheld After Disability Termination

This appeal concerns a wrongful dismissal claim where an employee was terminated after being placed on medical leave due to disability. The trial judge awarded 15 months' pay in lieu of notice and damages under the Human Rights Code, finding the employer satisfied its duty to accommodate but did not prove the contract was frustrated. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the assessment of undue hardship or the refusal to award additional damages for loss of income.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v Ontario (Children and Youth Services)

Judicial Review: Duty to Accommodate Absenteeism

This is a judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision regarding the termination of a public service employee with a chronic degenerative back condition due to excessive absenteeism. The court addressed whether the employer's duty to accommodate required accepting sporadic and unpredictable absenteeism that prevented the employee from fulfilling basic employment obligations. Applying the Hydro-Québec standard, the court found the employer's duty to accommodate ended where the employee could not meet attendance standards.

S. v Granite Club

Setting Aside Default Judgment in Wrongful Dismissal

This is an interlocutory motion regarding the setting aside of a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action. The court evaluated whether the defendant's explanation for failing to file a Statement of Defence—relying on suspended litigation during mediation—was plausible and whether an arguable defence existed. The court found that the defendant raised arguable defences regarding performance-based termination and disability benefits interference, leading to the decision to set aside the default judgment.

S. v Human Rights Tribunal (Ontario)

Judicial Review: Duty to Accommodate Disability

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding an employer's duty to accommodate an employee's disability. The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the employer fulfilled its obligations and that the applicant failed to participate in the collaborative accommodation process. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the employer.

V. v HRTO and Elia Associates Professional Corporation

Judicial Review: HRTO Upheld on Disability Discrimination

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding an employee's termination. The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the employer's request for an official transcript was a neutral job requirement, that the dismissal was based on performance rather than disability, and that there was no evidence of harassment or reprisal.

C. v. Revera Retirement LP

Human Rights: Duty to Accommodate Judicial Review

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding an employee with a disability who was terminated after being unable to perform offered modified work. The Divisional Court reviewed whether the employer breached its procedural duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code and whether the Tribunal's award of $5,000 for injury to dignity was reasonable.

D. v. PSI Peripheral Solutions Inc.

This is a constructive dismissal case involving the duty to accommodate disabled employees. The legal issues center on whether the employer's actions or omissions regarding accommodation amounted to a fundamental breach of the employment contract.

D.P. v. Hilti Canada Corporation

Human Rights: Criminal Charge as Disability

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision dismissing an application for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant, an employee, alleged discrimination after being refused return to work following a criminal charge, arguing this constituted a 'disability' under the Human Rights Code. The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's interpretation that 'disability' is limited to physical and mental conditions and declined to hear a constitutional challenge raised for the first time on review.