Dawson v. Canada Post Corporation

Dawson v. Canada Post Corporation

Tribunal accepted expert and complainant evidence that autism is a protected disability under the CHRA, applied the prima facie O'Malley test and on the balance of probabilities found that specific remarks attributed to a Canada Post official constituted adverse differentiation and that the Respondent's insistence on an independent medical assessment by an unfamiliar physician with potential expertise in violence despite treating physicians' warnings created a hostile work environment amounting to harassment under s.14; the Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence of retaliation and rejected several other alleged incidents as not establishing a prima facie case.

Citation
2008 CHRT 41
Parties
Complainant: Michelle Dawson; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Post Corporation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Complaint substantiated in part: breaches of sections 7 and 14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act found; no monetary compensation awarded as none was requested; remedial non-monetary orders imposed.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation, Duty to Accommodate, Medical Assessment/fitness for Work
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Disability Discrimination Harassment Retaliation Duty to Accommodate Medical Assessment/fitness for Work

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Dawson

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Post Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are autistic persons protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act?
  2. 2 Whether respondent discriminated against complainant by reason of disability contrary to s.7 CHRA
  3. 3 Whether respondent harassed complainant contrary to s.14 CHRA by conduct in relation to medical evaluation and workplace treatment

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal accepted expert and complainant evidence that autism is a protected disability under the CHRA, applied the prima facie O'Malley test and on the balance of probabilities found that specific remarks attributed to a Canada Post official constituted adverse differentiation and that the Respondent's insistence on an independent medical assessment by an unfamiliar physician with potential expertise in violence despite treating physicians' warnings created a hostile work environment amounting to harassment under s.14; the Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence of retaliation and rejected several other alleged incidents as not establishing a prima facie case.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated in part: breaches of sections 7 and 14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act found; no monetary compensation awarded as none was requested; remedial non-monetary orders imposed.

Orders

  • Provide a copy of existing or amended harassment, discrimination and accommodations policies within 30 days of the Tribunal's decision
  • Work with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for one year to modify existing policies to conform with the CHRA and human rights law if amendments are necessary