Correctional Service Canada (CSC) discriminated against a former casual employee on the basis of disability when it fired her after just six days into her role as an information clerk, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
It found that the decision to dismiss Y.B. was at least partially linked to her inability to work full-time hours due to her disability, and that CSC failed to accommodate her beyond an initial adjustment of work hours.
The tribunal awarded Y.B. $7,000 in damages, including $5,000 for pain and suffering and $2,000 for reckless discrimination, with interest.
Link between termination and disability
Y.B. was hired by CSC to fill a temporary leave replacement at the Edmonton Institution for Women. She disclosed her disability to her manager prior to starting work and requested accommodation in the form of reduced hours (22 per week instead of the standard 37.5) and flexibility in start times.
CSC granted these accommodations, but after taking over the full responsibilities of the position on May 31, 2017, Y.B. found the workload excessive and sought clarification on priorities and potential task adjustments. On June 16, 2017 — after just six days in the role — she was terminated.
The tribunal determined that Y.B. established a prima facie case of discrimination, satisfying the three-part test under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA): (1) she had a characteristic protected from discrimination (her disability), (2) she suffered an adverse impact (her termination), and (3) her disability was a factor in that adverse impact. While CSC argued that her termination was performance-related, the tribunal found insufficient evidence to support this claim.
Emails presented as evidence indicated that her manager had concerns about Y.B.’s fit for the role based on her early communications rather than documented performance deficiencies. One email between Y.B.’s manager and another manager expressed that “it seems we are trying to make a liter into a gallon… and that leaves us waaaay short of the performance mark we need.”
The tribunal found that this email and others reflected a reluctance to accommodate a part-time employee rather than specific performance issues.
Employer failed to establish bona fide occupational requirement
Under the Meiorin test for bona fide occupational requirements (BFOR), an employer must demonstrate that a work standard is rationally connected to job performance, adopted in good faith, and reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate work-related purpose. The tribunal found that while the requirement for accurate and timely information sharing was rationally connected to the role, CSC did not prove that it could not have accommodated Y.B. without undue hardship.
CSC’s approach to accommodation was passive, requiring Y.B. to determine which duties to prioritize without explicit guidance. The tribunal noted that Y.B. made multiple requests for direction on workload management, which were either ignored or met with skepticism. T.T. testified that accommodation should be “collaborative,” but the tribunal found that CSC placed the onus entirely on Y.B. to propose solutions, rather than engaging meaningfully in the process.
The tribunal found that CSC acted with “excessive haste” in terminating Y.B. instead of exploring additional accommodations. Notably, T.T. admitted during testimony that no parole hearings were delayed due to Y.B.’s work, contradicting claims that her performance created operational risks.
Harassment and systemic discrimination claims dismissed
Y.B. also alleged that she was harassed by her predecessor and that CSC engaged in systemic discrimination against employees requiring part-time work due to disabilities. The tribunal dismissed both claims, finding that:
- Harassment: Y.B. and her predecessor had workplace conflicts, but there was no evidence linking the treatment to Y.B.’s disability.
- Systemic discrimination: CSC did not exclude employees needing part-time work, as evidenced by Y.B.’s multiple employment stints with the organization, including after her termination.
Damages for discrimination
The tribunal awarded Y.B. $5,000 in damages for pain and suffering under section 53(2)(e) of the CHRA, recognizing the emotional distress caused by the discrimination. An additional $2,000 was awarded under section 53(3) for reckless discrimination, as CSC “acted in excessive haste and without regard for the consequences.” Simple interest was also awarded on the total amount from May 31, 2017, until the date of payment.
For more information, see Bayrock v. Correctional Service Canada, 2025 CHRT 9 (CanLII).
