Abstract
Two recent decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada, Honda Canada Inc.
v. Keays and Hydro-Québec v. Syndicat des employé-e-s de techniques
professionnelles et de bureau d’Hydro-Québec raise concerns about the
extent of human rights protections for employees with disabilities. In
this comment the author argues that when disabilities do not fit neatly
into a standard medical framework such as the conditions of chronic
fatigue syndrome or mental illness, there is a tendency to disbelieve
the employee, not take the individual seriously, or set out special
regimes for confirmation. With a focus on the employment contract rather
than discrimination, the author argues that an analysis of human rights
obligations was virtually absent in the employment law context. In the
labour law context, the Court gave no real guidance about the meaning
of undue hardship. The author suggests that these cases do not reflect
the broad vision of an inclusive workplace previously set out in
Meiorin.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 137-149 |
| Journal | McGill Law Journal |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2009 |