Insights Header image
Insights Header image
Insights Header image

Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Landmark Human Rights Decision: Reinstatement with Full Back Pay After a 14 Year Absence

June 2016 Employment and Labour Bulletin 3 minute read

Labour Notes (LexisNexis)

Back in April 2013, we reported on the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to order the reinstatement of a dismissed employee with full back pay and other significant monetary remedies following what was then an 11.5 year absence. The Tribunal had held that the employer had breached the Ontario Human Rights Code in failing to take reasonable steps to accommodate the employee’s disability following a lengthy sick leave: beware a failure to accommodate: employee ordered reinstated with back pay after an 11.5 year absence. The Divisional Court dismissed the employer’s application for judicial review in September, 2014.

Last month the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the employer’s appeal of the Divisional Court’s judgment: see Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board v. Fair 2016 ONCA 421: Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board v. Fair, 2016 ONCA 421

In rejecting the employer School Board’s appeal, the Court found that the Tribunal’s determinations both with respect to the failure to accommodate and the remedy of reinstatement were reasonable. On the failure to accommodate to the point of undue hardship, the Court stated that the Tribunal’s decision was “fact-driven and one that it was entitled to make based on the evidence before it”. As for the remedy, while noting that reinstatement is rarely used in the human rights context, the Court found that the Tribunal has broad remedial authority under the Code as well as “specialized expertise” that “is accorded a high degree of deference”. The passage of several years was found not to be determinative in itself. The decision as to whether reinstatement ought to be ordered is “context-dependent”. In this case the employment relationship was not fractured nor had the delay materially affected Fair’s capabilities, in the Tribunal’s view.

Of particular interest was the Court’s comment that in an appropriate case an employer may be obliged to place a disabled employee in a position for which the employee “is qualified but not necessarily the most qualified”. It favourably cited a 1991 grievance arbitration decision, noting that the employer’s obligation to accommodate under the Code prevailed over the seniority rights of the grievor who was competing for a vacant position.

Absent a successful application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (there has been no indication as yet by the School Board of such intention), Fair will be reinstated and receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pay and interest, along with other material monetary payments, following what is now a 14 year absence.

What Employers Should Know

This decision makes it clear that Ontario courts will give Tribunal decisions great deference. Further, the Tribunal’s remedial authority is extremely broad and it includes potential reinstatement where circumstances warrant.,

As the Tribunal said in its original decision, the duty to accommodate should be addressed “actively, promptly and diligently”.  When assessing a genuine accommodation request, an employer must proceed in good faith and consider all reasonable steps including modifications to the employee’s position (or other conditions of employment depending on the nature of the request) or looking for alternative jobs if the original position cannot be modified without undue hardship. This is a serious and sometimes tricky business and ought to be treated as such. It is a process that usually involves significant consultation and certainly detailed documentation. While the delay in the Fair case was anomalous, depending on the complexity of the situation an employer should not hesitate to seek input from its legal advisors or risk exposure to significant liability.

A Cautionary Note

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2016

Insights (5 Posts)View More

Featured Insight

Introducing Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, and an Update on the New Provincial Planning Statement

On April 10, 2024, Ontario’s provincial government introduced new legislation in its quest to “cut red tape”, speed up government processes, and meet its goal.

Read More
Apr 17, 2024
Featured Insight

Consumer-Driven Banking is (almost) Here! Highlights from Budget 2024

On April 16, the Government of Canada released its 2024 budget which includes the promise of new legislation this spring to implement open banking in Canada.

Read More
Apr 17, 2024
Featured Insight

Ontario Employers Beware: Common Termination Language Held Unenforceable

Ontario's Superior Court of Justice found that a termination clause was unenforceable because it gave the employer discretion to terminate "at any time".

Read More
Apr 16, 2024
Featured Insight

Warning For Businesses: Companies Can be Liable for Tort of Bribery Even if They Did Not Intend to Pay or Receive a Bribe

Businesses with a duty to provide impartial advice must take steps to ensure the payments they make or receive are not later interpreted as bribes.

Read More
Apr 12, 2024
Featured Insight

Storm Clouds Looming: The Impact of Competition Act Changes on Leasing

The Affordable Housing and Groceries Act (Bill C-56) recently introduced changes to the Competition Act (Canada) which will govern all landlord and tenant leases and other agreements, not just those of grocery stores

Details
Tuesday, April 30, 2024