Quigley v. Ocean Construction Supplies Ltd. et al., 2005 FCA 346
Judge | Desjardins, Evans and Malone, JJ.A. |
Court | Federal Court of Appeal (Canada) |
Case Date | October 25, 2005 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | 2005 FCA 346;(2005), 343 N.R. 186 (FCA) |
Quigley v. Ocean Constr. Supplies Ltd. (2005), 343 N.R. 186 (FCA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. NO.026
Patrick E. Quigley (appellant) v. Ocean Construction Supplies Ltd., Marine Division (respondent)
(A-297-04; 2005 FCA 346)
Indexed As: Quigley v. Ocean Construction Supplies Ltd. et al.
Federal Court of Appeal
Desjardins, Evans and Malone, JJ.A.
October 25, 2005.
Summary:
Quigley was employed by Ocean Construction Supplies since 1988. From January 1991 onwards, Quigley suffered from various tragedies and medical disabilities which prevented him from working regularly. In August 1996, his employment was terminated. Quigley filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of disability with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint. Quigley applied for judicial review.
The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 252 F.T.R. 30, dismissed the application. Quigley appealed.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Civil Rights - Topic 985
Discrimination - Employment - Duty to accommodate - Quigley was employed by Ocean Construction Supplies since 1988 as a cook on Ocean's outside tugboats - From January 1991 onwards, Quigley suffered from various tragedies and medical disabilities which prevented him from working regularly - In 1993, Quigley returned to work for a series of two-week trials, which were ultimately unsuccessful because of his inability to sleep in the accommodations on the outside tugboat or conduct the physically demanding deckhand work - In August 1996, his employment was terminated - Quigley filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of disability with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - The Tribunal concluded that Quigley had made out a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of disability, but that Ocean had fulfilled its obligation of attempting to accommodate Quigley to the point of undue hardship - On an application for judicial review, the applications judge held that it was impossible to accommodate Quigley, given his disability, in the sole work unit in which he sought accommodation without imposing undue hardship on Ocean - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal - See paragraphs 5 to 6.
Civil Rights - Topic 989
Discrimination - Employment - On basis of physical or mental disability - [See Civil Rights - Topic 985 and Civil Rights - Topic 998 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 998
Discrimination - Employment - Exceptions - Bona fide or reasonable occupational requirement or qualification - Quigley was employed by Ocean Construction Supplies since 1988 as a cook on Ocean's outside tugboats - From January 1991 onwards, Quigley suffered from various tragedies and medical disabilities which prevented him from working regularly - In 1993, Quigley returned to work for a series of two-week trials, which were ultimately unsuccessful because of his inability to sleep in the accommodations on the outside tugboat or conduct the physically demanding deckhand work - In August 1996, his employment was terminated - Quigley filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of disability with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - The Tribunal concluded that Quigley had made out a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of disability, but that Ocean had fulfilled its obligation of attempting to accommodate Quigley to the point of undue hardship - An application for judicial review was dismissed - Quigley appealed, arguing that Ocean could not establish the bona fide occupational requirement defence since it had not adequately assessed Quigley's physical ability to perform the functions of a deckhand - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - On the facts of this case, the law did not require the work trial urged by Quigley and the Tribunal's application of the law to the facts was not unreasonable - See paragraphs 3 to 4.
Counsel:
Paul Champ, for the appellant;
Michael W. Hunter, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Raven Allen Cameron Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on October 25, 2005, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Desjardins, Evans and Malone, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered from the bench by Evans, J.A., on the same date.
To continue reading
Request your trial