Telecommunications Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. v. Manitoba Telecom Services

Telecommunications Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. v. Manitoba Telecom Services

The tribunal found the complainants had pleaded perceived disability in their complaints and statements of particulars, so the July 6, 2007 letter did not raise new grounds; accordingly the respondent's motion to exclude evidence or argument on perceived disability and the duty to accommodate (including undue hardship) was dismissed.

Citation
2007 CHRT 29
Parties
Complainant: Telecommunications Employees Association of Manitoba Inc.; Complainant: Barbara Custance; Complainant: Carmen Giroux; Complainant: Chuck Hando; Complainant: Kathleen Mulligan; Complainant: Janice Sirett; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Manitoba Telecom Services
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Ruling on Respondent's Oral Motion at Start of Hearing
Outcome
Respondent's oral motion dismissed; complainants permitted to lead evidence and argue perceived disability and duty to accommodate including undue hardship.
Legal Topics
Disability, Perceived Disability, Duty to Accommodate, Undue Hardship, Prima Facie Case, Employer Policy, Layoffs
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Labour Law Discrimination Law Disability Perceived Disability 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Telecommunications Employees Association of Manitoba Inc.

Complainant

Barbara Custance

Complainant

Carmen Giroux

Complainant

Chuck Hando

Complainant

Kathleen Mulligan

Complainant

Janice Sirett

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Manitoba Telecom Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint / Ruling on Respondent's Oral Motion at Start of Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainants may lead evidence or argue that they were perceived to be disabled and that the respondent had a duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship
  2. 2 Whether the July 6, 2007 letter raised new allegations that amended the complaints
  3. 3 Application of the Meiorin/Grismer framework and the shift in onus after a prima facie case is established

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found the complainants had pleaded perceived disability in their complaints and statements of particulars, so the July 6, 2007 letter did not raise new grounds; accordingly the respondent's motion to exclude evidence or argument on perceived disability and the duty to accommodate (including undue hardship) was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondent's oral motion dismissed; complainants permitted to lead evidence and argue perceived disability and duty to accommodate including undue hardship.

Orders

  • Respondent's motion to prevent complainants from leading evidence or arguing perceived disability/accommodation/undue hardship is denied
  • Complainants may rely on perceived disability allegations as pleaded and proceed with evidence and argument at the hearing