Coulter v. Purolator Courier Ltd.

Coulter v. Purolator Courier Ltd.

Tribunal found Purolator discriminated on the basis of disability from December 15, 1998 to January 25, 2000 by removing the Complainant from his courier duties and failing to accommodate to the point of undue hardship; Purolator did not demonstrate that accommodation was impossible and ordered specified monetary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 CHRT 37
Parties
Complainant: Robert Coulter; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Purolator Courier Limited
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint Disability Discrimination in Employment / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Complaint substantiated; discrimination and failure to accommodate found for period December 15, 1998 to January 25, 2000; remedies ordered against Purolator.
Legal Topics
Duty to Accommodate, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement, Undue Hardship, Termination, Remedies, Workplace Accommodation
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Disability Law Duty to Accommodate Bona Fide Occupational Requirement Undue Hardship Termination +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Coulter

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Purolator Courier Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint Disability Discrimination in Employment / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Purolator discriminate on the basis of disability?
  2. 2 Did Purolator fail to accommodate the Complainant contrary to s.7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act?
  3. 3 Could Purolator justify its conduct as a bona fide occupational requirement or on the basis of undue hardship?

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found Purolator discriminated on the basis of disability from December 15, 1998 to January 25, 2000 by removing the Complainant from his courier duties and failing to accommodate to the point of undue hardship; Purolator did not demonstrate that accommodation was impossible and ordered specified monetary and remedial relief including lost wages, compensation for pain and suffering, reimbursement for car rental penalty and punitive compensation, with interest and obligations to prevent recurrence.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated; discrimination and failure to accommodate found for period December 15, 1998 to January 25, 2000; remedies ordered against Purolator.

Orders

  • Pay lost wages to Complainant for period February 5, 1999 to January 25, 2000 calculated at courier hourly wage under collective agreement and on basis of 37.5 hours per week.
  • Pay $5,000 CAD to Complainant for pain and suffering.