ARTICLE
5 February 2014

When Is An Illness Not A Disability? The Human Rights Tribunal Weighs In

SE
Stikeman Elliott LLP

Contributor

Stikeman Elliott LLP logo
Stikeman Elliott is a global leader in Canadian business law and the first call for businesses working in and with Canada. We provide clients with the highest quality counsel, strategic advice, and creative solutions. Stikeman Elliott consistently ranks as a top law firm in our primary practice areas. www.stikeman.com
In a recent Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision, the Tribunal determined that a diagnosis of strep throat was insufficient to invoke the protection of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Canada Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In a recent Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision, the Tribunal determined that a diagnosis of strep throat was insufficient to invoke the protection of the Ontario Human Rights Code. 

The application arose from the cancellation of the Applicant's contract with the Respondent, the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, after she was unable to attend its mandatory two day training program due to illness.  The Applicant alleged that the College's decision to cancel her contract was an act of discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal disagreed, finding that the medical condition that prevented the Applicant from attending the training (strep throat) did not constitute a disability under the Code and therefore the cancellation of the contract was not an act of discrimination.  In its decision, the Tribunal canvassed similar judgments and provided clarity regarding when a medical condition would not fall under the Code's protection: namely, commonplace and temporary illnesses are not accepted as disabilities, as they would trivialize the Code's protections, which are intended to protect defined groups.  The Tribunal stated that it was not the intent of the Code to "include literally everyone suffering from a few days illness", and that transitory ailments that do not act as barriers for persons to participate in society should not fall within the definition of "disability" pursuant to the Code.

Our Views:

This decision provides guidance for employers, who are often tasked with determining which ailments necessitate accommodation in the workplace.  Accordingly, when evaluating these requests, employers should consider whether the illness in question is transitory and commonplace.  If so, accommodation, particularly to the extent required by the Code (up to the point of undue hardship) is not likely required.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More