Howell v. Canadian Armed Forces

Howell v. Canadian Armed Forces

The Tribunal found the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination: the drill incident did not materially contribute to the significant knee injuries (those were caused by an intervening acute fall on March 27, 1995), the brace was not medically necessary for drill and any effect was de minimis, and even if tested the universality of service/BFOR considerations would justify the respondent's conduct; complaint dismissed.

Citation
2004 CHRT 31
Parties
Complainant: Ronald J. Howell; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Armed Forces
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Decision Reasons for Decision Following Full Hearing
Outcome
Complaint dismissed in its entirety
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Accommodation, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor), Universality of Service, Causation, PTSD Pension, Human Rights Tribunal Procedure
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Tort Law Military Law Disability Discrimination Accommodation Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor) +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald J. Howell

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Armed Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Decision Reasons for Decision Following Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the March 23, 1995 drill incident constitute discrimination contrary to s.7(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act?
  2. 2 Did the March 23, 1995 drill incident constitute adverse differentiation contrary to s.7(b) of the Act?
  3. 3 If discrimination established, could the CAF justify the conduct as a BFOR or under universality of service?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination: the drill incident did not materially contribute to the significant knee injuries (those were caused by an intervening acute fall on March 27, 1995), the brace was not medically necessary for drill and any effect was de minimis, and even if tested the universality of service/BFOR considerations would justify the respondent's conduct; complaint dismissed.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed in its entirety

Orders

  • Complaint dismissed
  • Tribunal retains jurisdiction to address costs if parties cannot agree