Marcovecchio v. Air Canada

Marcovecchio v. Air Canada

Air Canada unlawfully rescinded the PSS job offer based on management’s unilateral perception of the complainant’s hearing limitation without individual assessment or exploration of accommodation; Air Canada failed to establish a BFOR or that the AIAOD/CNESST exclusive jurisdiction barred the Tribunal, therefore the complaints under the CHRA are substantiated.

Citation
2023 CHRT 56
Parties
Complainant: Erik Marcovecchio; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Disability Discrimination / Decision (final)
Outcome
Complaints substantiated against Air Canada for discrimination on the basis of disability; respondent failed to justify rescission of offer and is ordered to pay compensation
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Duty to Accommodate, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement, Jurisdictional Overlap With Workers' Compensation, Remedies and Damages
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Workers' Compensation Disability Discrimination Duty to Accommodate Bona Fide Occupational Requirement Jurisdictional Overlap With Workers' Compensation +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erik Marcovecchio

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Disability Discrimination / Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant established a prima facie case of disability discrimination in rescission of internal job offer
  2. 2 Whether Air Canada established a bona fide occupational requirement/undue hardship defence
  3. 3 Whether Quebec workers' compensation regime (AIAOD/CNESST/TAT) has exclusive jurisdiction to bar Tribunal’s remedy

Ratio Decidendi

Air Canada unlawfully rescinded the PSS job offer based on management’s unilateral perception of the complainant’s hearing limitation without individual assessment or exploration of accommodation; Air Canada failed to establish a BFOR or that the AIAOD/CNESST exclusive jurisdiction barred the Tribunal, therefore the complaints under the CHRA are substantiated.

Court Disposition

Complaints substantiated against Air Canada for discrimination on the basis of disability; respondent failed to justify rescission of offer and is ordered to pay compensation

Orders

  • Pay $15,472 in compensation for lost wages, subject to statutory withholdings
  • Pay $10,000 for pain and suffering (s.53(2)(e) CHRA)