Vision problems prevented paramedic from holding ambulance licence but he requested accommodation as attend-only
This instalment of You Make the Call involves a paramedic who was pushed out of his job because of vision problems.
David Rogers was an ambulance paramedic in Simcoe County, Ont., for 14 years. In 2002, he was diagnosed with a condition that affected his vision. Though his vision was 20/20 in his right eye, it was only 20/200 in his left. Because of the vision problems, he couldn’t hold a Class F licence, the licence needed to drive an ambulance.
Without the licence, Rogers failed to meet the requirements to be an ambulance paramedic under the Ontario Ambulance Act, which stipulated all paramedics must hold a Class F licence. In November 2004 Simcoe asked the Ontario Ministry of Health if it could waive the licence requirement and Rogers also asked if he could work as an attend only paramedic with a partner doing the driving. At the time, the act exempted volunteer paramedics from the licence requirement if they worked as attend only, though this was revoked in 2008. The ministry responded that it could not waive the requirement and Simcoe place Rogers in a non-paramedic position outside of his bargaining unit.
Rogers filed a grievance, claiming Simcoe didn’t provide him with appropriate workplace accommodation. He said he could still perform paramedic work and even drive an ambulance if necessary. Allowing him to work as an attend only paramedic was a reasonable accommodation, he argued. Simcoe said it had no choice since legislation prevented it from employing him as a paramedic. It also said it met with its accommodation obligations by placing him in another position, though not paramedic-related.
Did Simcoe County live up to its duty to accommodate Rogers?
OR
Should Simcoe have done more to accommodate Rogers in a paramedic position?
If you said Simcoe adequately accommodated Rogers, you’re right. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found the requirements of the paramedic job and the provincial legislation limited Simcoe’s ability to place him in a paramedic position.
When the grievance initially went to arbitration, the arbitrator found the requirement for all paramedics to be able to drive an ambulance was not reasonably necessary for the health and safety of patients. The arbitrator found no evidence of negative effects in the circumstances where volunteer paramedics were attend only and concluded Rogers could be accommodated in an attend only role.
However, the court disagreed in an appeal of the arbitrator’s decision. It found the ministry’s requirements were designed to provide the best standard of ambulance care and any impediment to that standard could have serious health and safety consequences. If one paramedic at an accident site couldn’t drive the ambulance, the need to transfer care responsibilities so a specific individual could drive might cause delays and problems at accident sites, which were “frequently chaotic.” There were also issues for co-ordinators who must make on-the-spot decisions on who to send to accident sites, where to transport patients and staff allocations. Having an attend only paramedic in the mix could cause crucial delays, the court heard.
The court also found the licence exemption was intended for volunteer paramedics in rural areas in order to maintain a certain level of service. Though allowing a paramedic to work in an attend only capacity might maintain a reasonable standard of health, it contravened the ministry’s goal of the highest level in most areas serviced by full-time paramedics. As a result, the court overturned the arbitrator’s decision and dismissed Rogers’ grievance.
