Duty to Accommodate – Perfection Not Required

By: Michelle Quinn

Reading Time: 2 minutes

In Gaucher v. Fraser Health Authority and others, 2019 BCHRT 243, Carrie Gaucher (“Ms. Gaucher”) worked as a nurse for the Fraser Health Authority (“Fraser Health”) since 2007 at the Royal Columbian Hospital. In June 2017, Ms. Gaucher sustained a workplace injury and was off work for a few months.

In November 2017, she commenced a gradual return to work plan (“GRTW”). In total, Ms. Gaucher participated in three separate attempts to gradually return to work. Ultimately, she completed her return in April 2018.

Ms. Gaucher filed a human rights complaint (the “Complaint”) with the BC Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) against Fraser Health and several management employees alleging that they harassed her and negatively treated her throughout her GRTW. She alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of her disability contrary to the BC Human Rights Code (the “Code”).

She did not allege that the substantive terms of her GRTW were discriminatory. Rather, she believed that, throughout the process, her managers failed to treat her fairly and with due respect to her dignity.

Fraser Health applied to have the Complaint dismissed on the grounds that there was no reasonable prospect of success under the Code.

The Decision

The Tribunal determined that, based on all the evidence before it, there was no reasonable prospect that the Complaint will succeed at a hearing.

With specific regard to the GRTW plan and, while the conditions in the workplace were “not optimal” for Ms. Gaucher’s successful return, it did not amount to a failure to accommodate. Her experience of the GRTW was difficult, and it was not perfect. However, the standard for accommodation is not perfection. It is reasonableness (para. 87).

The Tribunal held (at para. 95):

I will consider this process, as the parties have, as three separate attempts to return to work. This approach helps understand the chronology but would not permit the Tribunal to isolate certain events in its assessment of the Respondents’ efforts to accommodate Ms. Gaucher. Rather, I agree with the Respondents that the adequacy of their accommodation must be based on “the entire history of the matter…considered on a global basis”. Hydro-Quebec at para, 404; Neumann v. Lafarge Canada Inc. (Richmond Cement Plant), 2009 BCHRT 197 at para. 370. Again, I will accept Ms. Gaucher’s version of events for the purpose of this application. Even accepting this version, however, taking a global approach to the evidence, I find it reasonably certain that the Respondents will prove they reasonably accommodated her.

If you have any questions about this case or the duty to accommodate generally, please contact any member of the Employment and Human Rights Group.

About Michelle Quinn

Michelle is a partner at RBS, and co-chair of the Employment and Human Rights Group. She acts for employees and employers and practices in all areas of employment and human rights law with a particular interest in workplace investigations. She is regularly asked to deliver training sessions to various organizations on their workplace policies including bullying, harassment, and discrimination. Michelle is also a member of the firm’s litigation and dispute resolution and personal injury law groups.
Click to learn more about Michelle Quinn

Read this next:

Using AI in the Hiring Process: Navigating Potential Bias

Reading Time: 2 minutes

As the capabilities of AI continue to evolve and improve, employers are increasingly using AI to assist them in the hiring process. However, given the complexity of AI systems, employers should be mindful of the potential risks of bias associated with using AI. In this post, we provide an insight into the source of bias in AI systems, navigating potential bias and highlight impending legislative requirements for disclosing the use of AI in the hiring process.
Mr. Independent Found to be Dependent – Court Awards 12 Months’ Severance Pay to Dependent Contractor

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Employee or independent contractor: which one are you? You might even be a dependent contractor. This intermediate category of “dependent contractor” has emerged over the last few years. Unlike an independent contractor, a dependent contractor must be provided with reasonable notice of termination of the contractor relationship. To determine whether a person is an employee or a contractor, the CRA and the Courts look at the substance of the relationship as a whole, which is exactly what the BC Supreme Court did in the case of Glimhagen v. GWR Resources Inc., 2017 BCSC 761

BC Workplace Blog