Martin Desrosiers v. Canada Post Corporation

Martin Desrosiers v. Canada Post Corporation

Tribunal found a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability because applicant was excluded due to medical unfitness. Canada Post failed to prove a BFOR because it did not adequately explore and document individual accommodation options or substantiate undue hardship; ergo the exclusion was discriminatory. Claim of discrimination based on family status was not proven.

Citation
2003 CHRT 26
Parties
Complainant: Martin Desrosiers; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Post Corporation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Human Rights (employment Discrimination) / Decision on Merits; Jurisdiction Retained for Remedy Hearing
Outcome
Complaint substantiated in part: discrimination based on disability proven; discrimination based on family status not proven; respondent failed to establish BFOR; tribunal retains jurisdiction to determine remedy.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Family Status, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement, Accommodation, Undue Hardship
Source Language
English
Employment Law Human Rights Administrative Law Disability Discrimination Family Status Bona Fide Occupational Requirement Accommodation Undue Hardship

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Desrosiers

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Post Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights (employment Discrimination) / Decision on Merits; Jurisdiction Retained for Remedy Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rejection of candidacy constituted discrimination based on disability
  2. 2 Whether rejection constituted discrimination based on family status
  3. 3 Whether respondent established a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) defense

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability because applicant was excluded due to medical unfitness. Canada Post failed to prove a BFOR because it did not adequately explore and document individual accommodation options or substantiate undue hardship; ergo the exclusion was discriminatory. Claim of discrimination based on family status was not proven.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated in part: discrimination based on disability proven; discrimination based on family status not proven; respondent failed to establish BFOR; tribunal retains jurisdiction to determine remedy.

Orders

  • Tribunal retains jurisdiction to convene a second hearing to determine remedy
  • Respondent found to have discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability; remedy to be determined at subsequent hearing