Pratt v West Coast Reduction Ltd. (Head Office), 2023 AHRC 97 [Pratt] is a reminder to employers that they must accommodate physically disabled employees to the point of undue hardship, and exemplifies the trend toward higher general damages awards for human rights violations.
Mr. Pratt was employed as a Ticket Millwright and Welder at the time of his termination from West Coast in April 2020. He previously held many different roles with West Coast during his 40-year career.
Mr. Pratt went on short-term disability leave in March 2017 due to degenerative changes in his lumbar spine. By February 2018, Mr. Pratt had returned to work on a modified schedule, and a plan was put in place for him to fully return to work on March 6, 2018. Prior to March 6, 2018, Mr. Pratt slipped on ice at his home and hurt his knee, which resulted in his going on long-term disability. Mr. Pratt was unable to return work as a Ticket Millwright and Welder; however, given his extensive experience working at West Coast he could have worked in one of several other roles, if the other roles were modified slightly to accommodate his work restrictions.
Mr. Pratt was terminated for “just cause” in April 2020 due to alleged frustration of contract. West Coast took the position that they did what they could to accommodate Mr. Pratt; they reviewed his work restrictions and tried to see if he could fill any of the positions that they had open, but they determined that he could not.
There are two parts to the analysis for determining whether an employer is liable for discrimination. The first part, the Moore test, involves determining whether the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating: (a) they have a characteristic protected from discrimination; (b) they experienced an adverse impact; and (c) the protected characteristic was at least a factor in the adverse impact. The Commission found that Mr. Pratt established all three elements of the Moore test.
The second part, the Meiorin test, shifts the onus to the employer to establish that they accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship by demonstrating: (a) it adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job; (b) it adopted the particular standard with an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and (c) the standard is “reasonably necessary” to the accomplishment of that legitimate work-related purpose. To show that the standard is “reasonably necessary”, it must be demonstrated that it is impossible to accommodate individual employees sharing the characteristics of the claimant without imposing undue hardship upon the employer.
The Commission held that West Coast failed to establish elements (a) and (c) of the Meiorin test, stating that there was no evidence that West Coast took any steps to re-bundle any of the duties that Mr. Pratt could perform, and that West Coast did not consider Mr. Pratt when they sought to hire new staff after his termination, notwithstanding their knowledge of his experience and circumstances.
The Commission awarded Mr. Pratt $40,000.00 in general damages for injury to dignity. Pratt is part of a continuing trend to award larger general damages for human rights violations. This trend is exemplified by other cases such as McCharles v Jaco Line Contractors Ltd., 2022 AHRC 115 where the Commission awarded $50,000.00 for injury to dignity, and Pryde v Align Fence Inc., 2023 AHRC 42 where the Commission awarded $30,000 for injury to dignity.
Student-at-Law
403.231.8221
a.kotyk@svrlawyers.com