Canadian HR Reporter, 2021
cate doesn't necessarily mark "an immedi-
ate end" to an employee's protected status
for a disability, the tribunal added.
Worker was told she wasn't
expected until next term
The tribunal also found that although
TTP wasn't successful in communicating
directly with the worker, it had sent two
different emails indicating that it didn't
expect her back until the new term began
in January. The preschool was holding her
to the standard in her contract requiring
timely notice of absence, but ignoring its
previous communications in the process,
said the tribunal, pointing out that this
was an unreasonable standard and not ra
-
tionally connected to the performance of
the job.
The tribunal noted that on the same day
TTP send the worker the termination letter,
it received a medical certificate indicating
an extension of her leave. Even if TTP was
uncertain of the worker's status previously,
the certificate should have cleared things up.
TTP may have been frustrated at that point,
but its assertion that the worker abandoned
her employment was not in good faith, the
tribunal said.
In addition, the tribunal found that TTP
didn't try to accommodate the worker to
the point of undue hardship. While TTP ex
-
perienced some difficulty in arranging cov-
erage for the worker's duties, it was able to
do so to the end of the term in December
with internal resources. However, it didn't
seek out any external help while the worker
was off work and it didn't begin looking for
another development assistant until late
January or February.
Time to Play and its two owners were
ordered to pay the worker $20,000 in gen
-
eral damages for injury to dignity and self-
respect from the discrimination. There was
insufficient evidence on any shortfall be-
tween EI benefits the worker received and
her regular wages, or the worker's attempts
to mitigate her losses, so no damages for
lost wages were awarded.
For more information, see:
• Cryderman v. Time to Play ECS (and indi-
vidual respondents), 2020 AHRC 26 (Alta.
Human Rights Trib.).
August
11,
2021
|
Canadian
Employment
Law
Today
CREDIT:
FATCAMERA
iSTOCK
The employer wasn't successful
in communicating directly, but
it had told the worker it didn't
expect her back until later.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jeffrey R. Smith
Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law
Today. He can be reached at jeffrey.smith@keymedia.com or
visit www.employmentlawtoday.com for more information.
