Robert Bonhomme

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.

During a strike by its unionized stage technicians, the Société de la Place des Arts de Montréal (SPA) decided to cease providing technical services to its tenants, requiring the tenants to hire their own technicians.

The union obtained an injunction from the Superior Court, upheld by the Court of Appeal, preventing the SPA from allowing tenants to use their own technicians, on the basis that this violated the anti-strikebreaking provisions of s. 109.1(b) of the Labour Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and vacated the injunction, holding that the SPA had genuinely abandoned the technical services part of its business and was not 'utilizing' the services of persons employed by another employer within the meaning of the Code.