Hughes v. Human Resources and Social Development Canada

Hughes v. Human Resources and Social Development Canada

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found the complainant established a prima facie case that HRSDC, knowing he suffered from depression, wilfully refused to continue his employment and failed to accommodate his disability contrary to s.7 CHRA; HRSDC did not rebut the prima facie case and the Tribunal rejected the retaliation claim under s.14.1; remedy awarded for pain and suffering and special compensation with interest pursuant to s.53 CHRA.

Citation
2012 CHRT 22
Parties
Complainant: Chris Hughes; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Disability Complaint / Tribunal Inquiry and Decision Following Commission Referral
Outcome
Complaint upheld in part: discrimination under s.7 CHRA found; retaliation under s.14.1 CHRA not found.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate, Termination, Retaliation, Remedies and Damages
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Disability Discrimination Failure to Accommodate Termination Retaliation Remedies and Damages

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chris Hughes

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Disability Complaint / Tribunal Inquiry and Decision Following Commission Referral

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HRSDC refused to employ or continue to employ the complainant because of disability contrary to s.7 CHRA
  2. 2 Whether HRSDC retaliated contrary to s.14.1 CHRA
  3. 3 Whether HRSDC failed to accommodate the complainant to the point of undue hardship

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found the complainant established a prima facie case that HRSDC, knowing he suffered from depression, wilfully refused to continue his employment and failed to accommodate his disability contrary to s.7 CHRA; HRSDC did not rebut the prima facie case and the Tribunal rejected the retaliation claim under s.14.1; remedy awarded for pain and suffering and special compensation with interest pursuant to s.53 CHRA.

Court Disposition

Complaint upheld in part: discrimination under s.7 CHRA found; retaliation under s.14.1 CHRA not found.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay $20000 CAD to the complainant for pain and suffering
  • Respondent to pay $10000 CAD to the complainant as special compensation for wilful conduct