Focuses on human resources law from a business perspective, featuring news and cases from the courts, in-depth articles on legal trends and insights from top employment lawyers across Canada.
Issue link: https://digital.hrreporter.com/i/1139227
Canadian HR Reporter, 2019 July 17, 2019 | Canadian Employment Law Today ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jeffrey R. Smith Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at jeffrey.smith@habpress.ca, or visit www.employmentlawtoday.com for more information. CREDIT: JHVE/SHUTTERSTOCK benefits. When it didn't find him a posi- tion, it excluded him from the workplace, though it tried to accommodate him with unsuccessful training and searches for other modified positions. However, after Brunskill's STD benefits lapsed in April 2014, nothing was done while CPC waited for medical information, though Brunskill wasn't receiving any pay be- cause of his LTD benefits application had been denied. e tribunal also found that CPC worked to accommodate Brunskill after he revealed his injury, finding a modified position and then trying to train him for another one when the first position was eliminated. It be - came problematic when Brunskill couldn't complete the training and had to go on STD benefits. However, the STD benefits didn't relieve CPC of the duty to accommodate, the tribunal said. CPC tried to argue that Brunskill delayed the accommodation process by not provid - ing updated medical information until late August 2014, but the tribunal disagreed. Brunskill provided information from an- other doctor before then that indicated he could perform similar modified duties, and he provided updated information from his doctor as soon as he could. Brunskill did what he could to facilitate the accommoda - tion process, the tribunal said. "Even though CPC requested an update of (Brunskill's) medical restrictions, it could still have relied on the medical restrictions dated August 2013 and confirmed until April 13, 2014, while it was waiting for the updated information to be provided," said the tribunal. "CPC should have continued to conduct job searches based on the informa - tion in its possession." e tribunal also found that not only was Brunskill excluded from the workplace, it also mostly excluded him from the accom - modation process. He wasn't involved in the job searches or any dialogue with CPC regarding his restrictions, training, or as- signments — he was just told about the decisions. is contributed to the anger Brunskill was feeling when he ultimately de- cided to stop working and retire. However, the tribunal found that Brunskill's decision to retire was hasty and it was his personal decision. ough he didn't like the part-time role, he was back in the workplace in a position compatible with his restrictions and was able to earn pay for work. CPC wasn't trying to demote him and it "would have been beneficial for (Brunskill) to show perseverance" in the accommoda - tion process. Instead, he excluded himself from the accommodation process, said the tribunal. CPC was ordered to pay Brunskill $16,145.86 for the period of April 13, 2014, to Sept. 10, 2014, from when his STD ben - efits ran out until he was assigned the part-time position, for its failure to accom- modate him during that period. It was also required to pay $12,000 for pain and suffer- ing it caused from its breach of the act and $10,000 in damages for reckless conduct, for a total award of $38,145.86. For more information see: • Glenn Brunskill v. Canada Post Corpora- tion, 2019 CHRT 22 (Can. Human Rights Trib.).