header_iceberg.jpg

Posts tagged: disability

Can my organization implement a drug testing policy at the workplace?

By , July 24, 2017 10:24 am

If you’ve been following the news over the last few months, you know that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to allow the union’s injunction against the TTC’s random drug and alcohol testing policy. More recently, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the termination of an employee who was terminated for violating his employer’s drug testing policy. These developments have led to us answering many questions from employers (and news publications) about whether they can also test their employees for drugs and alcohol.

Despite the TTC’s success at court, employers should proceed with caution when instituting drug and alcohol testing at the workplace. Firstly, the issue before the court was not whether such a policy was discriminatory. Secondly, the court refused the union’s injunction because of both the safety-sensitive industry and the wide area in which the TTC operates. Furthermore, the caselaw preceding the TTC decision shows that there is a high evidentiary burden an employer must satisfy to justify random drug testing its employees.

Because addictions to drugs or alcohol are considered “disabilities” under the Ontario Human Rights Code, drug and alcohol testing has human rights implications for people with addictions. For example, a human rights issue may arise where a positive test leads to automatic negative consequences for a person based on an addiction.

However, courts and tribunals recognise that it is a legitimate goal for employers to have a safe workplace, particularly in safety-sensitive industries. Therefore, there is caselaw that has recognised that a drug testing policy is justifiable if an employer can show that the policy is a bona fide (i.e. legitimate) requirement of the job. However, even if the policy is a legitimate requirement, employers should strive to minimise any potential discriminatory impact, and be prepared to accommodate employees with addictions who are negatively impacted by the policy.

Another requirement for a drug and alcohol testing policy to be found justifiable is that it must measure impairment, as opposed to drug or alcohol use. For example, while alcohol testing is able to measure a person’s impairment quite accurately, because drugs can remain in a person’s system for quite some time after their use, drug testing is less accurate at measuring impairment rather than drug use. For this reason, alcohol testing tends to be more permissible than drug testing. Similarly, testing after an accident or a “near-miss” is more justifiable than random testing.

Lessons to be Learned

As we get closer to marijuana being legal in Canada, questions around workplace safety and the permissibility of drug testing are bound to increase. We will continue to publish additional information as more relevant cases are released. In the meantime, if you are considering implementing a drug and alcohol testing policy at the workplace, you should consult an employment lawyer to find out whether such a policy would survive the scrutiny of a court or tribunal.

The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.

The Perils of Dismissing a Disabled Employee

By , July 12, 2016 1:08 pm

On June 30, 2016 the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in a case involving the dismissal of a disabled employee who earned about $ 22 000 per year. I wrote about the trial decision in April (see here for my blog post).

The OCA increased the damages the employer was ordered to pay from about $ 110 000 to about $ 245 000 which was basically the amount the person claimed in her Statement of Claim. One wonders if the OCA would have ordered the employer to pay more damages if the employee had sought more damages.

This decision is an evolution of the OCA’s 2014 Walmart decision which awarded an employee significant damages in addition to traditional wrongful dismissal damages. I have also written about the Walmart decision (see here).

The Facts

Ms. Strudwick worked for an employer that recruits individuals to participate in focus groups. She was paid $ 12.85 per hour and her duties involved data entry, and instructing recruiting staff.

In 2010, Ms. Strudwick became deaf. According to the trial judge: “…her employer’s attitude towards her and treatment of her became unconscionable. The plaintiff deposed she was constantly belittled, humiliated and isolated.” Among other things, the employer refused to accommodate her disability.

Damage Award

Wrongful Dismissal Damages

At the time she was terminated, Ms. Strudwick was 59 years old, had worked for almost 16 years, and held an administrative position. The trial judge ordered the employer to pay her a total of 24 months’ pay in lieu of notice and about $ 6000 in lieu of lost benefits during that time. This included twenty months pay in lieu of reasonable notice of termination and 4 months pay for bad faith termination or Wallace Damages. The OCA applied the traditional Bardal Factors and deferred to the trial judge and upheld the 24 month damage award which is the unofficial cap on wrongful dismissal damages.

Human Rights Damages

The judge awarded her $ 20 000 in general damages under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The OCA looked at court cases and Ontario Human Rights Tribunal cases including one of our cases and increased the damages to $ 40 000.

Damages for Intentional Infliction of Mental Stress

The judge concluded that the employer’s conduct caused Ms. Strudwick to suffer an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood which required psychological treatment and ordered the employer to pay almost $ 19 000 for the cost of this treatment. The OCA increased this damage award to $ 35 294 including $ $5,000 to address Ms. Strudwick’s pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Aggravated Damages

The trial judge awarded Ms. Strudwick no aggravated damages. Taking all of the abuse Ms. Strudwick endured, the OCA decided to award her $61,599.82 damages after deducting the Wallace Damages she was awarded.

Punitive damages

The judge ordered $ 15 000 in punitive damages because he did not think the other damage awards adequately accomplished the objectives of “retribution, deterrence and denunciation.” The OCA increased this amount to $ 55 000.

I expect this decision will hasten the trend for employee side lawyers to claim non-traditional damages in wrongful dismissal cases. The OCA’s decision to increase the damage amount in four of the damage claims will likely mean that employee counsel will be seeking higher settlements in the future.

I will be interested to see if the employer appeals this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC”) and if the SCC grants leave to appeal how the SCC will view this case in light of its 2008 decision in Honda.

Lessons to Be Learned

  1. Disabled employees have additional legal rights. Accordingly, employers should make themselves aware of these rights. For more information on the rights of disabled employees, click here.
  2. Any request for accommodation should be taken very seriously and failure to do so can result in significant legal damages. For information on the duty to accommodate, click here.
  3. Trying to force an employee to quit – especially a disabled employee – can result in additional legal damages.
  4. Judges have the discretion to order an employer to pay a sympathetic employee many different types of damages. For more information on different types of wrongful dismissal damages, click here.
  5. Always consult with an employment lawyer before terminating a disabled employee.

AODA Update: New Regulation Taking Effect July 1, 2016

By , June 27, 2016 11:56 pm

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (“AODA”) is constantly changing. So when there has been yet another change to AODA it takes all of my energy not to cover my ears and yell “LAH, LAH, LAH” at the top of my lungs.

Employment Standards Regulation: January 1, 2017

The most important amendment to AODA that applies to employers with 1 to 49 employees takes effect on January 1, 2017. For a description of our compliance service in connection with the Employment Standards Regulation, click here.

Ontario Regulation 165/16: July 1, 2016

Before the Employment Standards takes effect, however, another regulation – O. Reg. 165/16 – will take effect on or about July 1, 2016. It will consolidate all of the accessibility standards in the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation. Thereafter both small (1 to 49 employees) and large (Over 50 employees) organizations will be required to do the following:

Changes to AODA Requirements

  1. Training– currently, organizations are only required to provide customer service training to employees and volunteers who deal with third parties, and those who participate in developing the organization’s policies. However, the new regulation will require organizations to, as soon as practicable, train: (a) all employees and volunteers; (b) every person who participates in developing the organization’s policies; and (c) every other person who provides goods, services or facilities on behalf of the organization.
  2. Documenting policies, practices and procedures – currently, organizations with 20 or more employees must “document” their customer service policies, practices and procedures, and make a copy of that document available on request. However, when this regulation takes effect, this requirement will only apply to organizations with 50 or more employees. In other words, organizations with 20 to 49 employees are no longer required to document their customer service policies, practices and procedures.

Besides documenting their customer service policies, practices and procedures, large organizations must also (a) notify persons to whom it provides goods, services or facilities that the document which describes the organization’s policies, practices and procedures is available upon request; and (b) prepare a document that describes the organization’s training policy, summarizes the content of the training and specifies when the training is to be provided. Both documents must be provided to any person upon request.

All organizations with 20 or more employees must confirm their compliance with the above requirements by submitting an accessibility compliance report by no later than December 31, 2017.

Lesson to Be Learned

We recommend that you review and update all of your organization’s AODA policies, practices and procedures to ensure you are in compliance with the upcoming changes.

MacLeod Law Firm Update

I am very pleased to announce that I have hired Nadia Halum as our newest associate lawyer. She articled for us this past year. Please join me in welcoming Nadia to our firm. She can be reached at (647) 985-9894 or nadia@macleodlawfirm.ca

 

For over 25 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him at 416 317-9894 or at doug@macleodlawfirm.ca

“The material and information provided on this blog and this website are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information linked or referred to or contained herein. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog, without first retaining counsel and obtaining appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.”

 

 

 

Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Decision to Reinstate Disabled Employee with 10 Years Back Pay: Will Human Rights Litigation Ever Be the Same Again?

By , June 15, 2016 10:01 am

I predict a recent Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) decision will have a significant impact on human rights litigation. In particular, I suspect disabled employees will start asking employers to find or create alternative positions for them if they cannot perform their job duties because of a disability, and terminated employees will start asking adjudicators to reinstate them with full back pay.

Is an Employer Required to Find or Create an Alternative Position for a Disabled Employee?

In Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board and Sharon Fair the OCA stated that an adjudicator’s decision to reinstate an employee and order the employer to pay 10 years back pay was in keeping with an earlier Supreme Court of Canada decision. In the earlier case, the court articulated an employer’s duty, short of undue hardship, to arrange the employee’s workplace or duties to enable the employee to work, as follows:

Because of the individualized nature of the duty to accommodate and the variety of circumstances that may arise, rigid rules must be avoided. If a business can, without undue hardship, offer the employee a variable work schedule or lighten his or her duties – or even authorize staff transfers – to ensure that the employee can do his or her work, it must do so to accommodate the employee. [Emphasis added.]

In the Hamilton-Wentworth case the disabled employee could not perform the duties of her position but she could perform the duties of another position. An adjudicator with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) found that there would have been no need for the School Board to create a surplus position, as the financial resources existed for one position, or to displace an incumbent employee, as another position was vacant.

The OCA also stated: “…to fulfil its duty to accommodate an employee’s disability, an employer may be required in an appropriate case to place a disabled employee into a position for which he or she is qualified but not necessarily the most qualified.”

Should a Disabled Employee Be Reinstated with Full Back Pay?

One the one hand, the OCA stated that while rarely used in the human rights context, the remedy of reinstatement fell within the Tribunal’s remedial jurisdiction.

When refusing to overturn the adjudicator’s decision to order reinstatement, the OCA noted that Ms. Fair’s employment relationship with the School Board was not fractured and the passage of time had not materially affected her capabilities.

On the other hand, the OCA indicated that a comparison of an adjudicator’s jurisdiction under the Ontario Human Rights Code to an arbitrator’s jurisdiction in the labour relations context was not unreasonable or unusual and referred to an earlier Tribunal decision where an adjudicator, when examining the issue of reinstatement, noted:

While reinstatement orders are rarely requested or ordered in human rights cases, they are “normally” ordered in arbitral cases where a violation of a grievor’s rights has been found, unless there are “concerns that the employment relationship is no longer viable” A.U.P.E. v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004]….. The goal of human rights legislation, which is remedial in nature, is to put the applicant in the position that he or she would have been in had the discrimination not taken place. See Impact Interiors Inc. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (1998)… Where viable, reinstatement is sometimes the only remedy that can give effect to this principle.

What are the Implications of this Decision?

Will this case translate into a shift in how adjudicators exercise their remedial jurisdiction where reinstatement is no longer a rare remedy and becomes as common a remedy as in the arbitration world? If so, I think employee lawyers will start commencing more proceedings at the Tribunal as opposed to the courts all other things being equal. With the prospect of reinstatement and/or large back pay awards there will be more pressure on employers to settle at the Tribunal for larger settlements. Only time however will tell.

For over 25 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him at 416 317-9894 or at doug@macleodlawfirm.ca

“The material and information provided on this blog and this website are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information linked or referred to or contained herein. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog, without first retaining counsel and obtaining appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.”

Restaurant who refuses to serve customer with a service dog ordered to pay $ 2500 in general damages

By , May 31, 2016 9:59 am

Obligations to Train Employees On Human Rights Issues

We often represent employers and employees who have human rights issues. It is a rather complex area of the law, especially cases involving individuals with disabilities. For more blogs on the rights of disabled employees, click here.

An employer has obligations towards disabled employees under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act  (“AODA”) including mandatory training. For more information on an employer’s obligations under AODA, click here.

A recent case illustrates what can happen if an employer doesn’t properly train its employees on human rights issues.

The Facts of the Case

An autistic person, his mother and a service dog were refused service at a restaurant because they wanted the service dog to accompany them. The mother called the police who advised that they could not intervene. The police suggested they call the municipality but they were advised that the municipality could also not intervene and referred them to the Human Rights Legal Support Centre which said they did not have the resources to intervene in the immediate situation, but told them how to file an Application. After calling these places and getting no assistance, they left the restaurant and filed an application under the Code four days later.

The Law

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) found that autism spectrum disorder is a “disability” within the meaning of the Code

The Tribunal concluded the restaurant did not accommodate the son’s disability and in this regard quoted a section of a regulation under AODA, which states: “If a person with a disability is accompanied by a guide dog or other service animal, the provider of goods or services shall ensure that the person is permitted to enter the premises with the animal and to keep the animal with him or her unless the animal is otherwise excluded by law from the premises.”

The responsibility for ensuring that servers are properly trained and aware of the obligations of a service provider rests with the employer and not the employee. Any liability for discrimination done by an employee in the course of the employee’s employment that results in a breach of the Code is that of the employer.

The Decision

The restaurant violated the autistic person’s right to be free from discrimination because of a disability by refusing to permit his service dog to enter the restaurant.

The restaurant was ordered to retain at its cost an expert in human rights to develop a human rights policy.

The restaurant was ordered to pay the son $2,500 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. This case can be contrasted to an earlier decision where a person with a service dog was denied access to a mall for about 5 minutes and was awarded $ 1000 in damages because a mall employee did not understand his right to bring the service dog into the mall. For more information on this case, click here.

Lessons to be Learned:

  1. Many employers have a positive obligation to train employees on human rights issues, particularly under AODA. Failure to train employees can result in an employer being ordered to pay for an employee’s unfamiliarity with the law.
  1. Employers who offer services to the public, like restaurants, are particularly susceptible to human rights claims. Many members of the disabled community are aware of their rights and will enforce them. In this case, the mother told the restaurant staff that her son had the right to bring a service dog into the restaurant before she and her son were denied service.
  1. Employers should participate in the application process under the Code. In this case, the restaurant did not send a representative to the hearing. It is possible that because the adjudicator did not hear both sides of the story the damage award was higher than it would have been otherwise.

For over 25 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him at 416 317-9894 or at doug@macleodlawfirm.ca

“The material and information provided on this blog and this website are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information linked or referred to or contained herein. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog, without first retaining counsel and obtaining appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.”

Panorama Theme by Themocracy