ADHD as a Disability

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-04-25
CLNP Page ID:	1810
Page Categories:	[Human Rights], [Medical Disability]
Citation:	ADHD as a Disability, CLNP 1810, <4n>, retrieved on 2024-04-25
Editor:	Smcgrory
Last Updated:	2022/06/29

Gaisiner v. Method Integration Inc., 2014 HRTO 1718 (CanLII)

[1] The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him when it failed to accommodate his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) and terminated his employment. The respondent denied that it breached the Code. It submitted that it terminated the applicant’s employment solely because he did not have the technical ability to perform the duties of his job. Alternatively, the respondent submitted that it provided reasonable accommodations for the applicant’s disability, that he was incapable of performing the essential requirements of the job and that any further accommodations would have caused the respondent undue hardship.

[2] There was no dispute that the applicant had issues with his performance and that he was terminated due to these performance issues. The key questions in this case are the following: whether the applicant’s disability was a factor in his performance issues and, if so, whether he was capable of performing the essential duties of his position with accommodations that would not cause undue hardship to the respondent.

[3] At the hearing, I heard testimony from the applicant, his spouse, and Dr. Lance Levy, one of his treating physicians. I also heard testimony from Paul Jackson, the respondent’s Chief Executive Officer; Danny Do Couto, the applicant’s supervisor during the relevant time period; and Michael Melo, one of the applicant’s former co-workers.

[4] For the reasons that follow, I find that the applicant has met his onus of establishing a violation of the Code in this case.

Cohen v. Law School Admission Council, 2014 HRTO 537 (CanLII)

[69] There is no dispute between the parties that the testing service offered by the respondent is a service within the meaning of section 1 of the Code or that the applicant’s ADHD is a disability as defined in s. 10(1).

[70] Rather, the primary dispute between the parties involves whether or not the respondent breached the applicant’s right to access the LSAT without discrimination. The parties articulate this somewhat differently; namely, they describe the issue as being whether or not the respondent breached the substantive or procedural component of the duty to accommodate by failing to provide the applicant with the accommodations he requested.

[71] The applicant also alleges that the misconduct proceedings were in breach of the Code on the basis that if the respondent had granted the accommodations he believes he is entitled to, then the events of February 8, 2010, would not have occurred.