Review of Complex Services Inc v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, alerting readers to the employee's responsibility to provide supporting medical documentation as part of the accommodation process; casino employer creating substantial attempt to clarify nature of disability.
Looks at the perspective of persons with disabilities to identify the factors that influence their employee duty of disclosure; concerns that are considered when deciding to disclose, such as the unfair negative stigma often received, isolation or lowered expectations; highlighting barriers in the workplace that should be removed in order to address and circumvent such disclosure considerations.
Outlines what is required by an employee to disclose as part of the accommodation process, as well as the employer's duty to maintain privacy of medical documents provided.
Conference presentation paper as part of the Workplace Rights & Accommodations Forum 2016, discussing the collaborative process involved in the duty to accommodate, with a focus on the required nature and extent of information disclosure.
A brief discussion of pre-employment drug testing. Discusses the law on when a drug dependency is required to be accommodated, the justification for drug testing, and the workplace health and safety plans to support testing. It discusses when pre-employment, pre-access, random drug testing and zero tolerance policies are discriminatory. It discusses the implications of medical cannabis and recreational use. Discusses a decision where the lack of cannabis testing that could determine impairment was found to be undue hardship.
Commentary on SCC case Communications, Energy and Paperworks Union of Canada Local 30 v Irving Pulp and Paper Mill, 2013 SCC 34, and compares ratio to provide an analysis on the then ongoing litigation issues in Alberta Communications, Energy and Paperworks Union Local 707 v Suncor Energy Inc, 2012 ABCA 307; union vs. non-unionized setting on pre-employment drug test and the line of addiction as deciding factor.
The article gives a significant review of the OHRT adjudication of requests for anonymity in disability cases and discussed the risk of disclosure. It further discusses the balancing of the open courts principle vrs. the right to privacy; the right to privacy vrs. freedom of the press.
Discusses the test for anonymity of decisions and the implications for disability.
Provides a concise description of the duty to accommodate, then moves to the common types of medical documentation requested by employers, examples of independent medical examinations; explains the relevant ORHC policies; the impact of privacy legislation and relevant cases.
View of adjudicator's attempt to balance between right to privacy and right to information regarding accommodation needs; discusses cases where employee refuses to provide the necessary documents during the process.