The Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed an application by a former Citizenship and Immigration Canada employee who sought judicial review of a labour board’s decision rejecting his claims of discrimination and failure to accommodate. The applicant, T.C., alleged that his employer failed to properly accommodate his request to return to work following a medical leave.
Justice Monica Biringer upheld the decision of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, which found that the employer had met its duty to accommodate T.C.’s needs, even as it acknowledged the challenges involved.
T.C., a service delivery specialist at the Citizenship and Immigration Canada case processing centre in Vegreville, Alta., took a leave of absence following conflicts at work and a medical diagnosis. He later expressed a desire to return to work, specifying that he could only do so if relocated, based on his doctor’s advice. However, despite discussions with his employer, he did not resume work.
The case revolved around two grievances T.C. filed, both of which were dismissed by the Board. The Court’s ruling addressed each grievance in turn, upholding the Board’s findings. The Court determined that the standard of review was one of reasonableness, applying the criteria established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov. Justice Biringer noted, “The reviewing Court must consider ‘whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness—justification, transparency and intelligibility’.”
In the first grievance, T.C. challenged the priority status referral process used to facilitate his return. He argued that the process was ineffective and unreasonably delayed. The Board, however, concluded that while an employer is required to make accommodations, it is not bound to any specific procedure. According to the Board’s findings, the employer’s chosen process was reasonable, and the delay in implementing it was not unreasonable. Justice Biringer noted, “An employer is not required to follow any particular procedure in order to satisfy its duty to accommodate.”
The second grievance focused on T.C.’s claim that his employer failed to accommodate him by neglecting to explore alternative options. However, the Board cited several accommodations made by the employer, including offering him a position in Ottawa. Despite his concerns about moving, the Board found this offer to be a “reasonable accommodation” that directly addressed his request.
The Court also considered T.C.’s response to the employer’s accommodation efforts, noting that his engagement with the process had been inconsistent. Justice Biringer wrote, “The applicant’s efforts were ‘half-hearted and sporadic’, which effectively made it impossible for the employer to accommodate him.”
Justice Biringer underscored the legal principle that accommodation is a “multi-party inquiry,” and employees have a duty to participate in reasonable accommodation efforts. In this case, the Court found that T.C.’s rejection of the Ottawa offer and subsequent lack of engagement with alternative placements made it difficult for the employer to meet his requests.
The Court also addressed T.C.’s argument that the Board had erred by not conducting an “undue hardship” analysis. T.C. argued that the employer should have demonstrated that accommodating his request would impose undue hardship under the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, Justice Biringer noted that an “undue hardship” analysis was not required in this instance, as the employer had met its accommodation duty based on established facts and legal standards.
Lastly, the Court rejected T.C.’s assertion that the Board had downplayed the nature of his medical leave. According to Justice Biringer, the Board’s conclusions about the employer’s obligations were based on evidence that the employer had accepted his disability, honoured medical recommendations, and offered accommodations in line with his medical needs.
T.C.’s application was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay $3,500 in costs.
For more information, see Casper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 159 (CanLII).
