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 |
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: | 2024-05-21 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 1973 |
| Page Categories: | Human Rights |
| Citation: | Addiction, CLNP 1973, <7w>, 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
- ↑ 1.0 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
