Stanger v. Canada Post Corporation

Stanger v. Canada Post Corporation

Tribunal found one allegation proven: initial denial of CLDP recommendation constituted discrimination on the basis of marital status (events after November 1, 2004 protected); Canada Post failed to justify the denial as a bona fide occupational requirement and could have accommodated the assessment opportunity. All other allegations (removal from duties, multiple harassment claims, alleged forklift and rotten fruit incidents, most claimed disability discrimination) were not substantiated on the evidence or dismissed for lack of particulars and/or credibility. Employer was not found to have breached investigative duties because complainant repeatedly refused to provide particulars...

Citation
2017 CHRT 8
Parties
Complainant: Jessica Stanger; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Post Corporation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (chra) / Final Decision
Outcome
One allegation substantiated (denial of CLDP on marital status ground); remaining allegations dismissed.
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Harassment, Reasonable Accommodation, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement, Employer Investigative Duties, Remedies
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Discrimination Harassment Reasonable Accommodation Bona Fide Occupational Requirement Employer Investigative Duties +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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jessica Stanger

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Post Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (chra) / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of CLDP constituted discrimination on the basis of marital status
  2. 2 Whether removal or reassignment of duties constituted discrimination on the basis of disability
  3. 3 Whether alleged workplace comments and actions amounted to harassment under s.14 CHRA

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found one allegation proven: initial denial of CLDP recommendation constituted discrimination on the basis of marital status (events after November 1, 2004 protected); Canada Post failed to justify the denial as a bona fide occupational requirement and could have accommodated the assessment opportunity. All other allegations (removal from duties, multiple harassment claims, alleged forklift and rotten fruit incidents, most claimed disability discrimination) were not substantiated on the evidence or dismissed for lack of particulars and/or credibility. Employer was not found to have breached investigative duties because complainant repeatedly refused to provide particulars...

Court Disposition

One allegation substantiated (denial of CLDP on marital status ground); remaining allegations dismissed.

Orders

  • Proceed to bifurcated remedy phase: Tribunal Registry to notify parties of schedule for filing documentary evidence and argument on remedies as directed at paragraphs 89-91 of the decision
  • Parties to file evidence addressing causal link to loss, damages and mitigation; Tribunal to consider submissions and issue remedy order