Moffat v. Davey Cartage Co. (1973) Ltd.

Moffat v. Davey Cartage Co. (1973) Ltd.

Although the complainant established facts supporting a prima facie case (termination closely followed disability-related absence and a doctor recommended a graduated return), the respondent presented credible, specific, non-discriminatory reasons (performance problems, missing trailers, loss of customer, financial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2015 CHRT 5
Parties
Complainant: Michael Moffat; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Davey Cartage Co. (1973) Ltd.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Employment Discrimination / Tribunal Decision Final
Outcome
Complaint dismissed (not substantiated)
Legal Topics
Termination, Accommodation, Prima Facie Discrimination, Duty to Inquire
Source Language
english
Human Rights Employment Law Disability Law Termination Accommodation Prima Facie Discrimination Duty to Inquire

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Moffat

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Davey Cartage Co. (1973) Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Employment Discrimination / Tribunal Decision Final

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant established a prima facie case of disability discrimination under s.7(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
  2. 2 Whether respondent provided a reasonable non-pretextual explanation for termination that refutes prima facie discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

Although the complainant established facts supporting a prima facie case (termination closely followed disability-related absence and a doctor recommended a graduated return), the respondent presented credible, specific, non-discriminatory reasons (performance problems, missing trailers, loss of customer, financial decline) supported by evidence and demonstrated it believed the complainant was fit to return; therefore the respondent refuted prima facie discrimination and the complaint is dismissed as the complainant did not meet the burden to show the reasons were pretextual.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed (not substantiated)

Orders

  • Complaint dismissed