Grant v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.
Reinstatement was denied because evidence was insufficient to reassess comparative performance and the complainant only lost a 50% possibility of retaining employment; wage loss was denied because severance and tax returns show no loss and mitigation was established; pension and employee share ownership plan losses are remedies under s.53(2)(b) and should be restored at 50% of what would have been contributed to reflect the lost possibility; specific out-of-pocket expenses were awarded in part totalling $1,815.01; hearing costs were denied pursuant to Mowat; interest was awarded from specified dates under s.53(4); training and policy development ordered.
- Citation
- 2012 CHRT 20
- Parties
- Complainant: Heather Lynn Grant; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.
- Court
- Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 September 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Canadian Human Rights Act Disability Discrimination / Decision on Outstanding Remedies (remedies Determination)
- Outcome
- Partial remedies awarded; reinstatement denied; monetary awards for pain and suffering and wilful/reckless conduct; partial restoration of pension and share plan benefits; partial reimbursement of expenses; costs denied; interest awarded; training and policy remedy ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Disability Discrimination, Duty to Accommodate, Reinstatement, Wage Loss, Pension Restoration, Employee Share Ownership Plan, Interest, Costs, Training and Policy Development
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Heather Lynn Grant
Complainant
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Commission
Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Disability Discrimination / Decision on Outstanding Remedies (remedies Determination)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether reinstatement is an appropriate remedy
- 2 Whether wage loss should be awarded and how it should be calculated
- 3 Whether lost pension contributions should be compensated or restored
Ratio Decidendi
Reinstatement was denied because evidence was insufficient to reassess comparative performance and the complainant only lost a 50% possibility of retaining employment; wage loss was denied because severance and tax returns show no loss and mitigation was established; pension and employee share ownership plan losses are remedies under s.53(2)(b) and should be restored at 50% of what would have been contributed to reflect the lost possibility; specific out-of-pocket expenses were awarded in part totalling $1,815.01; hearing costs were denied pursuant to Mowat; interest was awarded from specified dates under s.53(4); training and policy development ordered.
Court Disposition
Partial remedies awarded; reinstatement denied; monetary awards for pain and suffering and wilful/reckless conduct; partial restoration of pension and share plan benefits; partial reimbursement of expenses; costs denied; interest awarded; training and policy remedy ordered.
Orders
- Restore the Complainant's pension benefits to the position they were in at the time of layoff; for the period from layoff to implementation the Respondent shall contribute half of the pension contributions it would have made had the Complainant remained employed; if restoration of the prior plan is impossible,...
- Restore the Complainant's employee share ownership plan to the position at the time of layoff; for the period from layoff to implementation the Respondent shall contribute half of the contributions it would have made had the Complainant remained employed; if restoration of the prior plan is impossible, provide...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment