2 total
Employer discriminated by terminating 27-year employee for absences related to eldercare without exploring accommodation.
The applicant, an architect employed by the respondents for 27 years, was terminated for failing to adhere to strict office attendance requirements.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status, arguing that his absences were required to care for his ailing mother.
The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, as his eldercare responsibilities required him to be absent from the office on numerous occasions.
The Tribunal held that the respondents failed in both their procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the applicant, having never inquired about his needs or explored accommodation options, and having failed to prove undue hardship.
The applicant was awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and the respondents were ordered to implement a human rights policy and training.
Motion for further particulars denied; provided responses were adequate.
The defendants brought a motion seeking further particulars of allegations in a statement of claim relating to alleged improper transactions between related corporate entities.
The plaintiff had already responded that the allegations concerned all relevant transactions, which the defendants argued improperly expanded disclosure beyond the applicable limitation period.
The court held that the adequacy of particulars was the only issue on the motion and that limitation issues relating to document production should be addressed in a separate motion if necessary.
The responses provided were found to be adequate and the defendants were not entitled to further particulars.
The court also criticized the defendants’ procedural conduct, including filing a confusing and unscheduled Rule 21 motion and mishandling scheduling and correspondence, which unnecessarily complicated the proceeding.
