Grant v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.

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.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

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)

  1. 1 Whether reinstatement is an appropriate remedy
  2. 2 Whether wage loss should be awarded and how it should be calculated
  3. 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...