Smith v. Canadian National Railway

Smith v. Canadian National Railway

CN met its duty to reasonably accommodate through multiple graduated return-to-work programs and offers of traffic/assistant traffic coordinator positions in Prince George; the complainant failed to prove he was totally and permanently disabled by objective medical evidence and his conduct was inconsistent with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 CHRT 15
Parties
Complainant: Jim Smith; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian National Railway
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (disability Accommodation) / Tribunal Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Pension Eligibility, Retaliation, Return to Work Programs, Family Status, Procedural Credibility
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Employment Law Disability Law Administrative Law Workers' Compensation Law Reasonable Accommodation Disability Pension Eligibility Retaliation +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jim Smith

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian National Railway

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (disability Accommodation) / Tribunal Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did employer discriminate by failing to accommodate complainant in his home terminal (Terrace) on the basis of disability and family status?
  2. 2 Did employer retaliate against complainant for pursuing a human rights complaint or to the WCB by misrepresentations to WCB and others?
  3. 3 Did employer unlawfully refuse a disability retirement pension (totally and permanently disabled) in retaliation or discrimination?

Ratio Decidendi

CN met its duty to reasonably accommodate through multiple graduated return-to-work programs and offers of traffic/assistant traffic coordinator positions in Prince George; the complainant failed to prove he was totally and permanently disabled by objective medical evidence and his conduct was inconsistent with total incapacity; pension denial was based on objective criteria and not retaliatory, therefore complaint dismissed.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed

Orders

  • Complaint dismissed