Ahmad v. Canada Revenue Agency
2013 PSLRB 60
- Before: Augustus Richardson
- Decision Rendered: 2013-05-27
- Original Language: English
An application for judicial review before the Federal Court was dismissed (Court file No: T-1122-13).
Duty to accommodate – Human rights – Disability
The grievor alleged that the employer failed to accommodate him – he had complained of pain and had raised concerns about the requirements of an acting position at the AU-01 level that he carry a secure audit bag for field work, as well as a laptop – the grievor submitted that, in both 2003 and 2005, the employer’s accommodation process had not been transparent – the employer submitted that, both in 2003 and in 2005, it acted in good faith by taking the grievor at his word and by making efforts to accommodate him – it noted that, in October 2003, the grievor decided to return to his position in collections before the employer could carry out a requested assessment – the employer rectified a performance appraisal done for the first period of time in 2003, during which the grievor acted in the AU-01 position – it also submitted that none of the medical evidence it obtained suggested that the grievor could not lift, carry or pull a lighter bag and laptop, which the employer had provided to him – the adjudicator found that the existence of pain did not necessarily establish the existence of a disability that prevented the grievor from performing the duties of the job – the grievor was provided with an ergonomic workstation, a headset, a lighter laptop computer and a lighter wheeled audit bag – the grievor failed to establish that he was disabled from carrying out those duties, at the very least when accommodated with the modified equipment – the adjudicator raised concerns about the grievor’s credibility – the grievor did everything except try to perform a field audit with the modified equipment provided to him – objective evidence indicated that the combined weight of the audit bag and laptop were within the range of what the grievor could carry and showed that his efforts in the testing were half-hearted – the grievor resorted to unlikely scenarios to support why he should not try to perform the duties of a field auditor – while the adjudicator acknowledged that the responses of upper levels of management were not always supportive of the duty to accommodate, the adjudicator did not agree with the grievor’s argument that the employer failed to accommodate him on an interim basis and found that he was accommodated from the start – the adjudicator observed that the grievor tried to use the employer’s duty to accommodate to leverage himself into a different position – an employee is not entitled to dictate the employer’s choice of an accommodated position if more than one is possible – the grievor made no effort to cooperate in the process to determine whether he could be accommodated in the field audit position.