Day v. Canada Post Corporation

Day v. Canada Post Corporation

Tribunal found only the November 2001 removal and placement on sick leave discriminatory because, while safety concerns justified removal, Canada Post failed to meet the procedural component of the duty to accommodate (timely disclosure of IME/Field Report to employee and physician and respectful handling). All other allegations were not substantiated; Canada Post provided legitimate non‑discriminatory explanations or reasonable accommodation offers where applicable.

Citation
2007 CHRT 43
Parties
Complainant: Tim Day; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Post Corporation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (disability) / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
One allegation substantiated: Canada Post discriminated in November 2001 by placing Mr. Day on sick leave and removing him from the workplace due to failure of procedural accommodation obligations. All other allegations dismissed.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Accommodation Duty, Harassment, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor), Remedies
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Disability Discrimination Accommodation Duty Harassment Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor) Remedies

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tim Day

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Post Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (disability) / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Canada Post discriminate by enforcing steel‑toed boot requirement (April 2001)?
  2. 2 Did Canada Post discriminate by placing Mr. Day on sick leave and removing him from the workplace (November 2001)?
  3. 3 Did Canada Post discriminate by requiring EL5s to submit preventative maintenance slips each Friday (January 2002)?

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found only the November 2001 removal and placement on sick leave discriminatory because, while safety concerns justified removal, Canada Post failed to meet the procedural component of the duty to accommodate (timely disclosure of IME/Field Report to employee and physician and respectful handling). All other allegations were not substantiated; Canada Post provided legitimate non‑discriminatory explanations or reasonable accommodation offers where applicable.

Court Disposition

One allegation substantiated: Canada Post discriminated in November 2001 by placing Mr. Day on sick leave and removing him from the workplace due to failure of procedural accommodation obligations. All other allegations dismissed.

Orders

  • Canada Post to pay Mr. Day $6000 compensation for pain and suffering under s.53(2)(e) of the CHRA
  • Canada Post to pay Mr. Day $5000 compensation for willful or reckless discriminatory conduct under s.53(3) of the CHRA