Sampat v. Air Canada

Sampat v. Air Canada

The complaint is dismissed because the complainant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she had a disability or that the respondent knew or ought to have known of it, did not request or substantively pursue accommodation prior to termination, and Air Canada established that the pushback certification standard was a BFOR and had already accommodated by granting an extra attempt; termination resulted from failure to meet job requirements rather than discrimination.

Citation
2021 CHRT 38
Parties
Complainant: Nalini Sampat; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Employment Discrimination / Final Decision (tribunal)
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; not substantiated
Legal Topics
Accommodation, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor), Discrimination on Ground of Disability, Termination, Resignation, Procedural Inquiry Duty
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Disability Law Administrative Law Accommodation Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor) Discrimination on Ground of Disability Termination +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nalini Sampat

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Employment Discrimination / Final Decision (tribunal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant had a disability protected under the CHRA
  2. 2 Whether the respondent knew or ought to have known of the alleged disability
  3. 3 Whether the complainant experienced an adverse employment impact on a prohibited ground

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint is dismissed because the complainant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she had a disability or that the respondent knew or ought to have known of it, did not request or substantively pursue accommodation prior to termination, and Air Canada established that the pushback certification standard was a BFOR and had already accommodated by granting an extra attempt; termination resulted from failure to meet job requirements rather than discrimination.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; not substantiated

Orders

  • Complaint dismissed
  • No compensation awarded