Dawson v. Canada Post Corp.
![handle is hein.journals/chhr64 and id is 376 raw text is: C A N A D I A N
Le He Re
FEDERAL
DISABILITY
Indexed as / Repertorid: Dawson v. Canada Post Corp.
HUMAN RI GHTS REPORTERCited /Cite : (2008), 64 C.H.R.R. 0/354, 2008 CHRT 41
CHRR Doc. 08-657 Paragraphs 1 - 248
Michelle Dawson
Complainant / Plaignante
and / et
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Commission
v./c.
Canada Post Corporation
Respondent Intimee
Date of Decision / Date de la decision:
October 3, 2008 / 3 octobre 2008
Before / Devant:
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal / Tribunal canadien
des droits de la personne, Pierre Deschamps
File No. / NO du greffe:
T1053/3405
Appearances by / Ont comparu:
Michelle Dawson, on her own behalf / pour elle-meme
R. Daniel Pagowski and/et Patrick O'Rourke, Counsel
for the Commission / Avocats de la Commission
Marc Santerre and/et Richard Pageau, Counsel for the
Respondent/ Avocats de l'intimee
DISABILITY - harassment and discriminatory treatment
in employment on the basis of autism - harassment of
disabled persons - REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
- duty to accommodate short of undue hardship
DISCRIMINATION - definition of harassment - RETAL-
IATION - harassment and discriminatory treatment on
the basis of previous human rights complaint - BUR-
DEN OF PROOF - elements of a prima facie case - EV-
IDENCE - circumstantial evidence - expert evidence
- medical evidence - balance of probabilities
REMEDIES - harassment and sensitivity training - ha-
rassment prevention strategy - accommodation and
anti-harassment policies - DAMAGES - damages de-
nied as complainant did not request an award
Summary: The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that
Canada Post discriminated against Michelle Dawson because
she has autism.
Ms. Dawson began work at Canada Post in December 1988 as
a full-time letter carrier She worked at Canada Post for 15
years until she went on sick leave. She liked her job a lot and it
was important to her She was a good employee and had an ex-
cellent work record.
She was diagnosed as being autistic in the early 1990s. The Tri-
bunal accepted Ms. Dawson's own testimony that autism is not
a mental illness. It is a neuro-biological difference, and it is an
innate condition, not an acquired one. The idea of curing autism
is meaningless. Violence is not a characteristic of autistic peo-
ple, although some, including Ms. Dawson, self-injure. Autistic
people flourish in structured environments and they process in-
formation in a more precise way than non-autistic people.
Ms. Dawson testified that Canada Post became aware of her di-
agnosis of autism in 1999 and after that everything went wrong.
Some employees at her work station felt threatened by Ms.
Dawson and sent a letter to that effect in July 1999.
In the course of dealing with the letter from some of Ms. Daw-
son's co-workers, a number of Canada Post employees - includ-
ing Ms. Dawson's supervisor; a manager in charge of Labour
Relations, a Director of Human Resources, and Canada Post's
Corporate Ethics Officer - made comments that branded Ms.
Dawson as a violent person, a perception which was entirely er-
roneous. The Tribunal ruled that this constituted discrimination.
In 2002, Ms. Dawson had an injury at work and the Tribunal
found that she was subsequently harassed by Canada Post,
which insisted that she submit to a medical evaluation by a
Canada Post designated physician. Ms. Dawson, her union,
and her own doctor objected to this, indicating that it would be
detrimental to Ms. Dawson to have to submit to an examination
by a doctor she did not know, and who knew nothing about
autism. Despite these objections, Canada Post continued to
press Ms. Dawson. To add insult to injury, the physician whom
Canada Post wanted Ms. Dawson to see was not an expert in
autism but a psychiatrist who specialized in violent behaviour
The chain of events showed a total lack of knowledge and un-
derstanding by Canada Post of autism. The Tribunal ruled that
Canada Post's handling of the medical evaluation process con-
stituted harassment.
Ms. Dawson did not ask for compensation or for reinstatement
in her job. The Tribunal ordered Canada Post to conduct work-
place equity, accommodation and sensitivity training for man-
agers and staff notably in relation to autism and autistic indi-
viduals.
CASES CITED
Basi v. Canadian National Railway Co. (No. 1) (1988), 9 C.H.R.R.
D/5029, [1988] C.H.R.D. No. 2 (QL): 70
Bobb v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Comm.) (2004), 50
C.H.R.R. D/498, [2004] A.J. No. 1117 (QL), 2004 ABOB 733:
68, 78
Canada (Attorney General) v. Brooks (No. 2) (2004), 51 C.H.R.R.
D/160, 2004 CHRT 36: 72
Canada (Attorney General) v. Brooks (No. 3) (2006), 62 C.H.R.R.
D/363, [2006] F.C.J. No. 1569 (QL), 2006 FC 1244: 71
Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Human Rights Comm.) and
Morris (2005), 55 C.H.R.R. D/1, [2005] F.C.J. No. 731 (QL), 2005
FCA 154: 67
Canada (Attorney General) v. Singh (1998), 34 C.H.R.R. D/203,
[1998] C.H.R.D. No. 7 (QL): 68
Filgueira v. Garfield Container Transport Inc. (No. 4) (2005), CHRR
Doc. 05-755, 2005 CHRT 32: 69
Hill v. Air Canada (No. 2) (2003), 45 C.H.R.R. D/456, 2003 CHRT 9:
77, 219
D/354](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/chhr64&div=24&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Dawson v. Canada Post Corp.
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most