Maxim v. Canadian Pacific Railway

Maxim v. Canadian Pacific Railway

Tribunal accepted on balance of probabilities that the complainant suffers from a poly-substance use disorder (a protected disability) but found the respondent established a BFOR: its measures were rationally connected to safety-sensitive job requirements, adopted in honest good faith, and reasonably necessary because workplace safety would suffer undue hardship without monitoring and restrictions; the complainant refused to participate in the accommodation process, so the complaint is dismissed.

Citation
2018 CHRT 22
Parties
Complainant: Bradley Scott Maxim; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Pacific Railway
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor), Duty to Accommodate, Undue Hardship, Substance Use Disorder, Fitness for Duty, Harassment (abandoned)
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Occupational Health and Safety Administrative Law Labour Law Disability Discrimination Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor) Duty to Accommodate +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bradley Scott Maxim

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Pacific Railway

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant established prima facie discrimination based on disability
  2. 2 Whether the respondent established a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) to justify adverse treatment
  3. 3 Whether the respondent’s policies were adopted in good faith and were rationally connected to job performance

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal accepted on balance of probabilities that the complainant suffers from a poly-substance use disorder (a protected disability) but found the respondent established a BFOR: its measures were rationally connected to safety-sensitive job requirements, adopted in honest good faith, and reasonably necessary because workplace safety would suffer undue hardship without monitoring and restrictions; the complainant refused to participate in the accommodation process, so the complaint is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed