After working for the City of Windsor for 25 years, 48-year-old Richard Avel was discharged for uttering a death threat against a long-time colleague, John Hammond. Richard then filed a Human Rights complaint claiming that he has a disability - alcohol addiction - which exacerbated his anger management problem. Richard had received discipline and had to attend training for incidents relating to his explosive temper in the past. But his performance reviews were very good. Richard's manager had a bit of a soft spot for him because he was a hard worker and very good at his role, and she often tried to smooth over confrontations that Richard instigated with other colleagues. Richard had never told anyone at work about his alcohol addiction in the past or requested any accommodations. In fact, his manager had approached him several times over the years to gently enquire about whether Richard needed any help or was dealing with anything. She had provided Richard with the phone number of the Employee Assistance Program, which included addiction support. Each of these attempts at support were unsuccessful as Richard always claimed that he was fine and refused any offers of help.  On September 9th, 2022, at a large team meeting Richard got into a disagreement with John. His speech was somewhat erratic and unhinged and eventually Richard accused John of trying to undermine his credibility. He also accused another former co-worker, a friend of John's who was recently deceased, of the same behaviour. John told Richard not to talk about his friend because he was dead, to which Richard replied "yes, and you will be too." John reported the incident, and an investigation ensued. Richard denied that he had threatened John's life. John, however, expressed that he was nervous about the threat, and feared what would happen to him and his family if Richard was dismissed. He eventually reported the threat to the police at the insistence of his wife. After investigating the incident, reviewing his file, and noting that Richard had already received discipline for anger management and yet continued to behave inappropriately, the employer made the decision to discharge him for cause. Richard then filed a Human Rights Complaint claiming that the organization discriminated against him based on his addiction disability. After a full investigation, the Human Rights Tribunal concluded that the City of Windsor did NOT discriminate against Richard based on his addiction. They concluded that this was not simply rude behaviour, but rather psychological violence that created fear and perpetuated a toxic work environment. Questions: 

a)  Why do you think that the Human Rights Tribunal concluded that addiction-based discrimination did not occur in this case? What pieces of evidence should be considered in this analysis?

 b)  What legislation would a judge apply to decide whether Richard's behaviour warrants dismissal? Explain why and how this legislation applies to this case. 

 c)  What did the employer do right in this case? What do you think they could have done differently to have a better outcome? 

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

a The Human Rights Tribunal likely concluded that addictionbased discrimination did not occur in this case because Richard had not disclosed his alcohol addiction to anyone at work and he had not requ... View the full answer