Pursuing accommodation can become undue hardship

A welder at a plant filed a complaint under section 124 of the ARLS. Following a car accident, the latter was left with functional limitations that prevented him from working full-time. He claims that he was terminated due to his disability, and alleges that the employer demonstrated its ability to accommodate him by allowing him to work part-time during his convalescence, which lasted several months. However, given the size of the company (15 employees), its organization and the labour shortage, the employer cannot accommodate the plaintiff permanently. In addition, his medical condition affects the quality of his work, since he forgets numerous welds, thereby jeopardizing his safety and the safety of his colleagues and clients. In these circumstances, the court was of the opinion that the employer had demonstrated that the plaintiff’s maintenance of employment constituted undue hardship. The complaint is dismissed.

Larose  c. Acier Robel inc.
2023 EXPT-1715, 2023 QCTAT 3536 (DRT), j.a. Véronique Emond