The appellant employer dismissed the respondent union's member due to chronic absenteeism caused by various physical and mental health issues.
The employee had missed 960 days of work over seven and a half years.
The arbitrator upheld the dismissal, finding that the employer had accommodated the employee to the point of undue hardship and that the employee would be unable to work regularly in the foreseeable future.
The Court of Appeal overturned this decision, holding that the employer had to prove it was impossible to accommodate the employee's characteristics and that the duty must be assessed at the time of dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, clarifying that the test for undue hardship is not total impossibility, but whether the employer can accommodate without undue hardship.
The Court also held that the duty to accommodate must be assessed globally, considering the entire period of absence.
