FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey
FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey
FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey
- No tags were found...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
made it clear that the applicant should not perform tasks beyond his medicalrestrictions.[70] I do agree with the Tribunal’s decision in Colella v. Toronto Catholic DistrictSchool Board, 2010 HRTO 2224, that the Code does not require a standard ofperfection, and every technical violation of a medical restriction will not necessarilyamount to a finding of a breach of the Code. However, I am satisfied, based on theevidence before me, that the applicant’s duties in April and May included some tasksthat were beyond his restrictions and consequently the respondent failed in its duty toaccommodate the applicant during this period. This constitutes a violation of theapplicant’s rights under the Code.2012 HRTO 1455 (CanLII)[71] I would briefly note here that the applicant also complained that other personswho were given modified duties were not required to undertake modified duties tasksassigned to the applicant, for example, using the sit down sweeper. I accept therespondent’s testimony that this was because modified duties were assigned accordingto the nature of the injury and that these other two employees who respectively had ashoulder injury and a foot injury were not given a job using the sit down sweeperbecause of the difficulty they would have in driving the sweeper.2) Did the respondent meet its duty to accommodate the applicant’s disability upto the point of undue hardship in June 2007?[72] There was evidence before me to suggest that the respondent was not initiallygoing to offer the applicant modified work in June. Mr. Castellano testified that therewas limited modified work available in June because of the number of persons on theafternoon shift who had injuries requiring accommodation. Ms. Roehl submitted a formto WSIB in May (page four of the WSIB Form 7) stating that “Saputo will be able toaccommodate the modified light duties until June 1 (inclusive) but will not have theselight duties after this date and that this is due to the light duties not being designated toone employee each day. The light duties are shared with all employees. Mr. Lagana22