Human rights complaint dismissed; flu is not a handicap and allergic reaction was self-induced.
The complainant, a probationary employee, was terminated after being absent for three days within her first 29 working days, pursuant to the employer's unwritten attendance policy.
She alleged discrimination on the basis of handicap, claiming her absences were due to an asthmatic reaction to aspirin and the flu.
The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant's allergic reaction was the result of her own reckless negligence in taking unverified medication despite her doctor's warnings.
Furthermore, the Board held that the flu is a commonplace, transitory illness that does not constitute a handicap within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.
The complaint was deemed trivial and frivolous, and costs were awarded to the respondents on a solicitor-client basis.
Ouimette v. Lily Cups Ltd., 1990 CanLII 12497
