Lafrenière v. Via Rail Canada Inc.

Lafrenière v. Via Rail Canada Inc.

The Tribunal found that for the third incident (September 14, 2012) the complainant had a mental health disability supported by prior undisputed medical notes and credible evidence of stress/anxiety; the respondent knew or ought to have known (supervisor memo, prior medical leave, recent penalty point pattern) and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2019 CHRT 16
Parties
Complainant: Serge Lafrenière; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Via Rail Canada Inc.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act S.7 Inquiry (employment Discrimination) / Final Decision After Hearing (tribunal Decision)
Outcome
Complaint substantiated in part (only for third incident of September 14, 2012); no discrimination found as to first two incidents
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Accommodation, Duty to Inquire/notice, Estoppel and Jurisdiction, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement / Undue Hardship, Remedies and Damages, Procedural Fairness / Expert Evidence
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Employment Law Disability Law Administrative Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Accommodation Duty to Inquire/notice Estoppel and Jurisdiction +3 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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Serge Lafrenière

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Via Rail Canada Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act S.7 Inquiry (employment Discrimination) / Final Decision After Hearing (tribunal Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction notwithstanding earlier arbitration decision (estoppel)
  2. 2 Whether the complainant had a disability at times of incidents and established a prima facie case under CHRA s.7
  3. 3 Whether the respondent knew or ought to have known of the disability

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that for the third incident (September 14, 2012) the complainant had a mental health disability supported by prior undisputed medical notes and credible evidence of stress/anxiety; the respondent knew or ought to have known (supervisor memo, prior medical leave, recent penalty point pattern) and failed to inquire or accommodate; the disability was a factor in the conduct leading to disciplinary action; respondent did not establish a lawful justification (no BFOR/undue hardship defence was pleaded or proven); therefore the complaint is substantiated in part for the third incident and remedies short of reinstatement are ordered.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated in part (only for third incident of September 14, 2012); no discrimination found as to first two incidents

Orders

  • Develop a clear labour relations policy requiring all disciplinary action to consider an employee’s physical or mental health condition and have it reviewed and approved by the Canadian Human Rights Commission
  • Ensure all documents concerning physical or mental disability (collective agreement, policies, etc.) are consistent in English and French and available to employees in their language of choice