Philps v. Ritchie-Smith Feeds Inc.

Philps v. Ritchie-Smith Feeds Inc.

Tribunal found a prima facie case of disability discrimination; respondent satisfied the first two Meiorin prongs (rational connection and good faith) but failed the third because it did not meaningfully attempt individualized accommodation, did not obtain functional capacity or independent medical assessments, did not assess alternative positions (including prior Saturday dispatcher work), and produced insufficient evidence of undue hardship; termination was discriminatory and reckless, warranting awards under s.53.

Citation
2021 CHRT 9
Parties
Complainant: Robert Philps; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Ritchie-Smith Feeds Inc.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Employment Discrimination (disability) / Final Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Complainant successful; respondent found liable for discrimination on the basis of disability and reckless conduct in termination
Legal Topics
Duty to Accommodate, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor), Disability Discrimination, Remedies and Interest
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Disability Law Administrative Law Duty to Accommodate Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor) Disability Discrimination Remedies and Interest

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Philps

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Ritchie-Smith Feeds Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Employment Discrimination (disability) / Final Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Prima facie discrimination under s.7(a) of the CHRA
  2. 2 Whether respondent established a BFOR under s.15(1)(a) and met Meiorin test
  3. 3 Whether respondent accommodated complainant to point of undue hardship

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found a prima facie case of disability discrimination; respondent satisfied the first two Meiorin prongs (rational connection and good faith) but failed the third because it did not meaningfully attempt individualized accommodation, did not obtain functional capacity or independent medical assessments, did not assess alternative positions (including prior Saturday dispatcher work), and produced insufficient evidence of undue hardship; termination was discriminatory and reckless, warranting awards under s.53.

Court Disposition

Complainant successful; respondent found liable for discrimination on the basis of disability and reckless conduct in termination

Orders

  • Pay $38,358.86 CAD for lost wages (subject to tax and statutory deductions)
  • Pay additional gross‑up to cover any income tax liability arising from lump sum payment of lost wages