O’Grady v. Bell Canada

O’Grady v. Bell Canada

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the complainant failed to establish a prima facie connection between her dismissal and her disability; the evidence showed her termination resulted from a legitimate, non-discriminatory corporate reorganization (Bell’s 100-day plan) affecting many employees, not from discriminatory considerations related to her mental illness.

Citation
2018 CHRT 34
Parties
Complainant: Kathleen O’Grady; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Bell Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Human Rights (employment Discrimination) / Final Decision (chrt)
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty to Accommodate, Discrimination on the Basis of Disability, Restructuring and Dismissal, Prima Facie Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Disability Law Administrative Law Duty to Accommodate Discrimination on the Basis of Disability Restructuring and Dismissal Prima Facie Burden of Proof

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathleen O’Grady

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Bell Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights (employment Discrimination) / Final Decision (chrt)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dismissal constituted discrimination under section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act on the basis of disability
  2. 2 Whether Bell had a duty to accommodate the complainant’s mental disability at the time of restructuring
  3. 3 Whether there was a causal connection between the complainant’s disability and her termination

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the complainant failed to establish a prima facie connection between her dismissal and her disability; the evidence showed her termination resulted from a legitimate, non-discriminatory corporate reorganization (Bell’s 100-day plan) affecting many employees, not from discriminatory considerations related to her mental illness.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed