Temple v. Horizon International Distributors

Temple v. Horizon International Distributors

Tribunal found some instances of adverse treatment (pressure to accept loads, differential debt management, delayed WorkSafeBC handling) but the complainant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her sex or disability was a factor in those actions; therefore complaint not substantiated and dismissed under s.53(1) of the CHRA.

Citation
2017 CHRT 30
Parties
Complainant: Sandra Temple; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Horizon International Distributors
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Employment Discrimination (sex and Disability) / Final Decision Following Inquiry
Outcome
Complaint not substantiated; dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Disability, Adverse Differential Treatment, Refusal to Continue to Employ, Workplace Accommodation, Work Safe Bc/mpi Claims
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Discrimination Sex Discrimination Disability Adverse Differential Treatment Refusal to Continue to Employ +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Temple

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Horizon International Distributors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Employment Discrimination (sex and Disability) / Final Decision Following Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant established prima facie discrimination on grounds of sex and disability
  2. 2 Whether adverse differential treatment or refusal to continue to employ occurred
  3. 3 Whether prohibited grounds were a factor in the adverse treatment or dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found some instances of adverse treatment (pressure to accept loads, differential debt management, delayed WorkSafeBC handling) but the complainant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her sex or disability was a factor in those actions; therefore complaint not substantiated and dismissed under s.53(1) of the CHRA.

Court Disposition

Complaint not substantiated; dismissed