Kimberly T. Morris

The applicant, a long-service employee, went on medical leave due to hypertension and acute anxiety.

When cleared to return to work with accommodations, he made a clear request to his employer and its third-party disability manager (Sun Life) for an alternative, less stressful position.

The employer incorrectly assumed Sun Life's denial of short-term disability benefits meant the applicant required no accommodation, and failed to investigate or discuss the accommodation request.

The Tribunal found no discrimination prior to the leave, but held that the employer breached both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The individual respondents were dismissed from the application.

The employer was ordered to pay $15,000 for injury to dignity, $34,575 for lost wages, and to retain a consultant to review its disability management policies.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the applicant's human rights application on the basis of delay.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicant's allegations of age and disability discrimination constituted a series of incidents under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that several historical allegations regarding workplace incidents and denied promotions were untimely and could not be entertained as background information.

Those allegations were dismissed.

The applicant was directed to provide further particulars regarding one remaining allegation, while the allegations concerning a failure to accommodate and a discriminatory denial of a job promotion remained part of the application.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings arguing that the applicant's human rights application was untimely and improperly expanded the scope of the original complaint to include reprisal, disability harassment, and failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed within the required timeframe relative to the last alleged incident, but directed the parties to provide further submissions on whether the earlier incidents constituted a series or were out of time.

The Tribunal permitted the failure to accommodate and some harassment allegations to proceed, as they were grounded in the original complaint, but excluded the reprisal allegations.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement awarding costs to the respondent, Leather Treaty, fixed in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive.

The appellant employment agency placed an employee with the respondent without checking her references.

The employee subsequently defrauded the respondent.

The respondent obtained a civil judgment against the employee and then sued the appellant for negligence and breach of contract.

The trial judge found the appellant liable but reduced damages by 50 percent due to the respondent's contributory negligence in failing to supervise the employee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions on causation, apportionment of liability, or the prevention of double recovery.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent employee had been constructively dismissed.

The employer had imposed an indefinite unpaid suspension and demotion following an incident with the chief executive officer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that there was no implied term in the employment contract authorizing unpaid suspensions.

The Court also agreed that the discipline imposed was disproportionate, punitive, and amounted to constructive dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.