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.
(Created page with "Category:Human Rights ==McLean v. Riverside Health Care Facilities Inc., 2014 HRTO 1621 (CanLII)<ref name="McLean"/>== [27] To establish a prima facie case of discr...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Human Rights]]
[[Category:Human Rights]]
{{Citation:
| categories =
| shortlink =
}}


==McLean v. Riverside Health Care Facilities Inc., 2014 HRTO 1621 (CanLII)<ref name="McLean"/>==
==McLean v. Riverside Health Care Facilities Inc., 2014 HRTO 1621 (CanLII)<ref name="McLean"/>==

Revision as of 20:03, 19 August 2022


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-05-21
CLNP Page ID: 1973
Page Categories:
Citation: Addiction, CLNP 1973, <>, retrieved on 2024-05-21
Editor: MKent
Last Updated: 2022/08/19


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] [2] [3]

  1. 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. 2.0 2.1 Fleming v. North Bay (City), 2010 HRTO 355 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/286kq>, retrieved on 2022-08-19
  3. 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