Clemente v. Air Canada

Clemente v. Air Canada

Air Canada failed to prove that continuing to accommodate Mr. Clemente beyond December 1, 2016 would have caused undue hardship under s.15 CHRA because it did not adequately search for suitable work beyond the two branch positions, did not demonstrate costs/health/safety hardship with evidence, and adopted an inflexible approach that forced the complainant into disability retirement; therefore the prima facie discrimination was not justified and the complaint is substantiated.

Citation
2024 CHRT 102
Parties
Complainant: Giuseppe Clemente; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Merits Decision (complaint Substantiated); Remedies to Be Determined
Outcome
Complaint substantiated: Air Canada discriminated on the basis of disability by denying accommodation and forcing the complainant into disability retirement; BFOR/undue hardship not proven.
Legal Topics
Disability Accommodation, Reasonable Accommodation, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement, Undue Hardship, Forced/constructive Retirement, Scope of Tribunal Inquiry
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Disability Accommodation Reasonable Accommodation Bona Fide Occupational Requirement Undue Hardship Forced/constructive Retirement +1 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Giuseppe Clemente

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disability Discrimination Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Merits Decision (complaint Substantiated); Remedies to Be Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant established prima facie discrimination on the ground of disability
  2. 2 Whether complainant experienced an adverse employment impact
  3. 3 Whether disability was a factor in the adverse impact

Ratio Decidendi

Air Canada failed to prove that continuing to accommodate Mr. Clemente beyond December 1, 2016 would have caused undue hardship under s.15 CHRA because it did not adequately search for suitable work beyond the two branch positions, did not demonstrate costs/health/safety hardship with evidence, and adopted an inflexible approach that forced the complainant into disability retirement; therefore the prima facie discrimination was not justified and the complaint is substantiated.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated: Air Canada discriminated on the basis of disability by denying accommodation and forcing the complainant into disability retirement; BFOR/undue hardship not proven.

Orders

  • Complaint is substantiated.
  • Parties must notify the Tribunal Registry by November 1, 2024 whether they will attempt mediation of remedies with the Tribunal's assistance or on their own.