Addiction: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Citation: | {{Citation: | ||
| categories = | | categories = Human Rights | ||
| shortlink = | | shortlink = 7w | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 20:04, 19 August 2022
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-23 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 1973 |
| Page Categories: | Human Rights |
| Citation: | Addiction, CLNP 1973, <7w>, retrieved on 2024-11-23 |
| Editor: | MKent |
| Last Updated: | 2022/08/19 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
McLean v. Riverside Health Care Facilities Inc., 2014 HRTO 1621 (CanLII)[1]
[27] To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in a case involving addiction, discipline and termination of employment, an applicant must establish that the discipline and/or dismissal resulted from misconduct that was causally related to the applicant's addiction. If such a prima facie case is established, the respondent must demonstrate that it accommodated the applicant's addiction-related needs to the point of undue hardship. See Fleming v. North Bay (City), 2010 HRTO 355,[2] Ryan v. Canada Safeway and Ramponi (No. 2), 2008 BCHRT 12.[3]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 McLean v. Riverside Health Care Facilities Inc., 2014 HRTO 1621 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gf8qz>, retrieved on 2022-08-19
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Fleming v. North Bay (City), 2010 HRTO 355 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/286kq>, retrieved on 2022-08-19
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Ryan v. Canada Safeway and Ramponi (No. 2), 2008 BCHRT 12 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/1wt1w>, retrieved on 2022-08-19
