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)
 
FREE EXCERPT

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

FREE SIGN UP