L'Archeveque v. Calgary (City), (2003) 337 A.R. 381 (QB)

• Judge: Fraser, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 22, 2003
• Citations: (2003), 337 A.R. 381 (QB);2003 ABQB 220

L'Archeveque v. Calgary (2003), 337 A.R. 381 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. AP.035

Susan L'Archeveque (respondent/complainant) and the City of Calgary (appellant/respondent)

(Action No. 0201-15780; 2003 ABQB 220)

Indexed As: L'Archeveque v. Calgary (City)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Fraser, J.

March 6, 2003.

Summary:

A municipal employee developed a repetitive strain injury that restricted her ability to work. In April 1998, the employee was accommodated with a part-time position with a municipal department. She informed the municipality that she still wanted full-time hours. She began working full-time within the municipal department in April 2000. A Human Rights Panel held that the municipality failed to accommodate the employee's disability to the point of undue hardship from April 1998 to April 2000. The Panel awarded the employee $15,799.19 damages, including $9,000 for mental suffering. The municipality appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal in part. The court affirmed that the municipality breached its duty to accommodate. However, the court reduced the award for mental suffering to $4,000.

Civil Rights - Topic 985

Discrimination - Employment - Duty to accommodate - A municipal employee developed a repetitive strain injury that restricted her ability to work - She was accommodated with modified jobs and/or hours - In April 1998, the employee was accommodated with a part-time position with a municipal department - She informed the municipality that she still wanted full-time hours - She had to take part-time jobs for outside employers to earn additional income - She began working full-time within the municipal department in April 2000 - A Human Rights Panel held that the municipality failed to accommodate the employee's disability to the point of undue hardship from April 1998 to April 2000 - The municipality failed to accommodate her in full-time work and restricted her to part-time work - Although the municipality claimed that the employee was medically restricted from full-time work, that was not the case - The employee was left on her own to find full-time or additional part-time work - Further, the municipality could have done more to assist the employee to obtain retraining either through the municipality or the Workers' Compensation Board - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench upheld the decision - See paragraphs 1 to 62.

Civil Rights - Topic 1170

Discrimination - Remedies - Hurt feelings or mental anguish - Compensation - A municipal employee of 22 years developed a repetitive strain injury that restricted her ability to work - She was accommodated with modified jobs and/or hours - In April 1998, the employee was accommodated with a part-time position with a municipal department - She informed the municipality that she still wanted full-time hours - She began working full-time within the municipal department in April 2000 - A Human Rights Panel held that the municipality failed to accommodate the employee's disability to the point of undue hardship from April 1998 to April 2000 - In particular, the municipality failed to accommodate her in a full-time position and she was required to seek alternate employment on her own - The Panel awarded the employee $9,000 for mental anguish - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reduced the award to $4,000 - The municipality's actions could not be classified as wilful or intentional and did not warrant a punitive basis for the award - See paragraphs 80 to 90.

Civil Rights - Topic 1174

Discrimination - Remedies - Vacation and holiday pay - A municipal employee developed a repetitive strain injury that restricted her ability to work - She was accommodated with modified jobs and/or hours - In April 1998, the employee was accommodated with a part-time position with a municipal department - She informed the municipality that she still wanted full-time hours - She began working full-time within the municipal department in April 2000 - A Human Rights Panel held that the municipality failed to accommodate the employee's disability to the point of undue hardship from April 1998 to April 2000 - The Panel held that the employee was entitled to vacation pay and holiday pay for that period - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench upheld the Panel's order - See paragraphs 70 to 73.

Cases Noticed:

Holmes v. Canada (Attorney General) (1997), 130 F.T.R. 251 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 55].

Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Human Rights Commission (Alta.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489; 113 N.R. 161; 111 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 59].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 59].

Scott v. Board of Education, School District No. 29 (Lillooet) (1991), 5 B.C.A.C. 262; 11 W.A.C. 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Zinn and Brethour, The Law of Human Rights in Canada, Practice and Procedure (2002), p. 16-2 [para. 80].

Counsel:

Jim G. Foster, for the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission;

Deborah Dalton, for the City of Calgary.

This appeal was heard on January 22, 2003, by Fraser, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on March 6, 2003.