Mellon v. Human Resources Development Canada

Mellon v. Human Resources Development Canada

Tribunal found complainant suffered panic/anxiety (a disability), respondent knew or ought to have known from workplace interactions and medical notes, decision not to renew was influenced by the disability, and respondent failed to demonstrate that it accommodated to the point of undue hardship; therefore termination amounted to discrimination contrary to s.7 of the Act.

Citation
2006 CHRT 3
Parties
Complainant: Mary Mellon; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Human Resources Development Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Employment Discrimination / Liability Determination (bifurcated); Damages Hearing to Follow
Outcome
Complaint substantiated: discrimination on basis of disability found; liability established; damages and remedies to be determined at subsequent hearing
Legal Topics
Duty to Accommodate, Prima Facie Discrimination, Disability, Termination, Undue Hardship
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Disability Law Administrative Law Duty to Accommodate Prima Facie Discrimination Disability Termination +1 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Mellon

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Human Resources Development Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Employment Discrimination / Liability Determination (bifurcated); Damages Hearing to Follow

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of disability
  2. 2 Whether the respondent failed to accommodate the complainant's disability
  3. 3 Whether the decision not to renew the complainant's contract was influenced by her disability

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found complainant suffered panic/anxiety (a disability), respondent knew or ought to have known from workplace interactions and medical notes, decision not to renew was influenced by the disability, and respondent failed to demonstrate that it accommodated to the point of undue hardship; therefore termination amounted to discrimination contrary to s.7 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated: discrimination on basis of disability found; liability established; damages and remedies to be determined at subsequent hearing

Orders

  • Liability decision issued in favour of the complainant; hearing dates to be scheduled to determine damages and other relief