Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Labour law - Discrimination based on handicap - Prolonged innocent absenteeism due to illness - Employer’s duty to accommodate - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that Hydro-Québec’s decision to dismiss Ms. Laverrière was discriminatory - Whether Court of Appeal erred in not considering effort made by Hydro-Québec to accommodate Ms. Laverrière - Whether Court of Appeal distorted concept of accommodation by forcing Hydro-Québec to keep employee in her job - Whether Court of Appeal erred in adopting standard of correctness to review arbitrator’s decision - Whether Court of Appeal erred in reviewing arbitrator’s finding that Hydro-Québec could not accommodate employee without undue hardship.

On July 19, 2001, Hydro-Québec imposed an administrative dismissal on Manon Laverrière. In the dismissal letter, Hydro-Québec referred to Ms. Laverrière’s high absenteeism rate since 1994, noted that her absenteeism meant she was unable to perform her work on a regular and reasonable basis and stated that, in the opinion of the medical experts consulted, Ms. Laverrière’s attendance at work would remain problematic and there was no reason to think that it might one day improve.

At the time of her dismissal, Ms. Laverrière had been working for Hydro-Québec for about 24 years as a sales, rates and programs clerk. Her many absences were due to such things as an employment injury, a tense situation with her immediate supervisor, several bouts of depression and two suicide attempts. Between 1994 and 2001, Hydro-Québec authorized several absences, transferred Ms. Laverrière to a new position under another supervisor, abolished the new position and then transferred it to another city, and authorized a gradual return to work, but none of these measures were successful. In 2000 and 2001, doctors examined Ms. Laverrière, in some cases at the employer’s request, and found that she had a personality disorder that caused her serious adjustment problems and resulted in depressive episodes and absences from work that were at times prolonged.

The grievance arbitrator chosen to dispose of the grievance presented by the Syndicat dismissed the grievance, finding, inter alia, that it could not be concluded from the evidence that the employer had discriminated against or harassed Ms. Laverrière or that it bore any share of responsibility in this case. In the arbitrator’s opinion, it would have been unreasonable to require the employer to create a position that would be constantly adjusted to Ms. Laverrière’s specific characteristics and very uncertain availability. The Superior Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment.