Addiction

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:	2022/08/20

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)

[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, Ryan v. Canada Safeway and Ramponi (No. 2), 2008 BCHRT 12.

Fleming v. North Bay (City), 2010 HRTO 355 (CanLII)

[68] In a case such as this one that involves addiction to alcohol, discipline and termination of employment, the main issues that I am required to determine are whether the applicant has established that the respondent suspended him and then terminated his employment because of misconduct that was causally related to his addiction to alcohol, and if so, whether the respondent has established that it accommodated the applicant’s needs related to his addiction up to the point of undue hardship: see British Columbia (Public Service Agency) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union, 2008 BCCA 357 (CanLII); Ryan v. Canada Safeway and Ramponi (No. 2), 2008 BCHRT 12 (CanLII); Health Employers Assn. of B.C. (Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital) v. B.C. Nurses' Union, 2006 BCCA 57 (CanLII); Kemess Mines Ltd. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115, 2006 BCCA 58 (CanLII).