Smith v. S & S Delivery Service Ltd.

Smith v. S & S Delivery Service Ltd.

The complaint was dismissed because the evidence established personal animus and individual dispute between the parties rather than treatment based on membership of a protected group or a prohibited ground; the drug test was a pretext and the complainant did not prove he was refused employment because of a disability or perceived drug dependency under s.7 or that a discriminatory employment policy under s.10 applied to a protected group.

Citation
2005 CHRT 13
Parties
Complainant: Fred Smith; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: S & S Delivery Service Ltd.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Final Decision (hearing Concluded)
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Drug Testing, Termination, Employment Policy
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Disability Law Disability Discrimination Drug Testing Termination Employment Policy

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

Parties

Fred Smith

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

S & S Delivery Service Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint / Final Decision (hearing Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer's drug testing policy or practice discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability (drug dependency) under s.10 CHRA
  2. 2 Whether the employer refused to continue to employ the complainant on the basis of a prohibited ground (perceived drug use or disability) under s.7(a) CHRA
  3. 3 Whether the conduct was personal animus or group‑based discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint was dismissed because the evidence established personal animus and individual dispute between the parties rather than treatment based on membership of a protected group or a prohibited ground; the drug test was a pretext and the complainant did not prove he was refused employment because of a disability or perceived drug dependency under s.7 or that a discriminatory employment policy under s.10 applied to a protected group.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed

Orders

  • Complaint dismissed; no remedies awarded