Injury compensation scheme and charter of human rights have similar goals but aren’t exclusive
A Quebec worker who was injured at work has won his appeal arguing that his right to disability accommodation is not superseded by the province’s workplace injury compensation scheme.
Alain Caron was a special educator at Centre Miriam, a centre for people with intellectual disabilities in Mont-Royal, Que.
On Oct. 20, 2004, Caron injured his left elbow while working. He developed lateral epicondylitis, or tennis elbow. Due to his limitations, Centre Miriam assigned him temporarily to be the team leader of the night shift, helping with paperwork and providing training and support to night shift employees who transferred patients with intellectual or development disabilities from a local hospital to specialized residences suited to their needs.
In 2007, Centre Miriam’s role in transferring patients ended and Caron’s responsibilities on the night shift ended. However, he was unable to return to his pre-injury job and Centre Miriam determined it no longer had suitable employment for him.
Quebec’s workers’ compensation body at the time, the Commission de la sante et de la securite du travail (CSST), told Caron that since there was no suitable employment for him at Centre Miriam, it would look for rehabilitation and retraining options. Caron felt it was too early for that and Centre Miriam should do more to accommodate him under the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He argued that Centre Miriam could accommodate him with suitable employment in his pre-injury position as an educator with modifications, or the team leader position he held during his temporary night shift assignment.
The CSST determined the duty to accommodate under the Quebec charter didn’t apply to the province’s Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases — the authority for the province’s workplace injury compensation. After an appeal, the Commission des lesions professionnelles (CLP) agreed, ruling the statutory benefits from Quebec’s injury compensation scheme met the employer’s duty to accommodate. Once an employee received benefits or was accepted for retraining, there was no further need to accommodate, said the CLP.
Caron took his case to the Quebec Superior Court, which disagreed with the earlier findings. The court found the employer’s duty to accommodate under the charter should be factored into the question of suitable employment with the original employer and ordered Caron’s case reconsidered. The Quebec Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the CSST’s appeal, determining that the Quebec workplace injury compensation legislation should be considered in accordance with Caron’s human rights under the charter, including the duty to accommodate.
The case made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the top court noted that Quebec’s injury compensation system conferred any matters under it exclusively to the CSST and workers injured at work could not launch a civil liability action related to the injury against their employer. This meant, said the Supreme Court, that “there is no other recourse for an injured worker, and no other forum in which to vindicate his or her rights.”
The Supreme Court also noted that Quebec’s injured worker legislation was intended to prevent unfair treatment of workers based on disabilities resulting from workplace injuries. The act specifically states that “no employer may dismiss, suspend or transfer a worker or practice discrimination or take reprisals against him, or impose any other sanction upon him because he has suffered from an employment injury or exercised his rights under this act.”
On the other hand, the Supreme Court acknowledged that “the duty to accommodate disabled employees is a fundamental tenet of Canadian and, more particularly, Quebec labour law,” including the charter.
The court also noted that the charter is treated as “a source of fundamental law” and courts take the approach that all Quebec law should be interpreted in conformity with the province’s charter. Since the charter includes the duty to accommodate, legislation shouldn’t deprive someone who is disabled from a work injury of the right to be accommodated like someone who is disabled from non-work-related reasons, said the court.
Quebec’s injured worker legislation allows workers to return to their pre-injury employment within a specified time if they’re able to recover sufficiently enough to do the job. If not, they have access to job-search, retraining, or other assistance.
The Supreme Court found that injury compensation legislation allowed for three different possibilities for injured workers — reinstatement, equivalent work, or suitable employment — all which ensure “that an employee who is able to work can do so,” which is consistent with accommodation.
The Supreme Court also found that the CSST’s services providing assistance for injured workers getting back into a state of readiness for work are a form of accommodation. There was common ground between the injury compensation legislation’s right to suitable employment and the charter’s duty to accommodate, said the court.
