Addiction: Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
}} | }} | ||
==McLean v. Riverside Health Care Facilities Inc., 2014 HRTO 1621 (CanLII)<ref name="McLean"/>== | ==<i>McLean v. Riverside Health Care Facilities Inc.,</i> 2014 HRTO 1621 (CanLII)<ref name="McLean"/>== | ||
[27] To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in a case involving addiction, discipline and termination of employment, <b><u>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.</b></u> See <i>Fleming v. North Bay (City),</i> 2010 HRTO 355,<ref name="Fleming"/> <i>Ryan v. Canada Safeway and Ramponi (No. 2),</i> 2008 BCHRT 12.<ref name="Ryan"/> | [27] To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in a case involving addiction, discipline and termination of employment, <b><u>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.</b></u> See <i>Fleming v. North Bay (City),</i> 2010 HRTO 355,<ref name="Fleming"/> <i>Ryan v. Canada Safeway and Ramponi (No. 2),</i> 2008 BCHRT 12.<ref name="Ryan"/> | ||
Revision as of 22:12, 20 August 2022
| 🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2025-04-03 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 1973 |
| Page Categories: | Human Rights |
| Citation: | Addiction, CLNP 1973, <7w>, retrieved on 2025-04-03 |
| Editor: | MKent |
| Last Updated: | 2022/08/20 |
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
