Rhonda Khani

This is the case of Heather Lynn Grant v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.
http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/federal/canadian-human-rightstribunal/2012/04/26/heather-lynn-grant-v-manitoba-telecom-services-inc-2012-35367-chrt.shtml
Ms. Heather Lynn Grant filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission
(the Commission) on January 10, 2008 against her former employers Manitoba Telecom
Services. She alleged that her employer, Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. (MTSI) participated in
a discriminatory practice in context of section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, when it
decided to terminate her employment, and choosing to retain a more junior employee, based on
the Heathers negative performance appraisals. She also alleged that the negative comments in
the performance appraisals were linked to her disability, type II diabetes.
Heather stated that the symptoms of her disability negatively affected her performance at
work. Although aware of her disability, MTSI negatively assessed her performance in her
Partnering for Performance and Results (PP&Rs) without considering the effects of her disability
on her performance. As her PP&Rs were used to compare her performance with that of another
employee for the purpose of determining who would be laid-off, she alleged that her disability
was a factor in the MTSIs decision to refuse to continue to employ her. Ms. Grant also alleged
that she was specifically targeted for lay-off because of her disability.
The section 7 of the CHRA:
It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,

(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an
employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination

After a four year process on April 26, 2012, the Tribunal found that Heathers disability,
Type II diabetes, and was at least one of the factors to her receiving a negative job performance
evaluation which was used to determine who would be laid off. MTSI did not provide a
reasonable explanation for its discriminatory conduct. The Tribunal ordered MTSI to pay
$10,000 in compensation for pain and suffering and $10,000 for having engaged in the
discriminatory practice wilfully or recklessly. They were also ordered to work with the
Commission to train high level management in, and to develop a policy on, the duty to
accommodate. This was to be done within a year of the decision.

Rhonda Khani

Heather Lynn Grant v. Manitoba Telecom Services

Inc.
Name
Mark

F.

Its okay to compare the work of someone with a disability with a

healthy co-workers work.

T.

It is a discriminatory practice to differentiate adversely in relation

to

an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

F.

You dont need to consider the effect of a disability when doing a

performance appraisal.
T. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. had train high level management
in, and to develop a policy on, the duty to accommodate.
T. A compensation MTSI had to pay was for the engagement in the
discriminatory practice wilfully or recklessly.