For this assignment you will review a fictitious fact pattern that has various aspects from different human rights tribunal decisions and provide an analysis and a final ruling. I INTRODUCTION

$[1]$ The Complainant, John English, claims that the Respondent, Pinetree Logging Ltd$.($Pinetree$$ or $$the Company$)$ has discriminated against him in the area of employment, on the ground of physical disability, contrary to s$.13$ of the Human Rights Code. Mr$.$ English was regularly employed by Pinetree from late June $2013$ to mid$-$February $2014.$ Mr$.$ English is a cancer survivor who was diagnosed with a recurrence of cancer while employed by the Company. He complains that the Company terminated him when it should have accommodated his marijuana smoking on the job.

$[2]$ Pinetree is a logging contractor working northeast of Smithers, B$.$C$.$ It ordinarily employs $22$ to $25$ logging employees. Pinetree denies any discrimination contrary to the Code. It claims it was only enforcing clear health and safety regulations in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, B$.$C$.$ Reg. $296/197$ under the Workers Compensation Act, R$.$S$.$B$.$C$.1996,$ c$.492.$ Pinetree asserts that it did not terminate Mr$.$ English because of his cancer diagnosis but it admits it advised him that he could not smoke medical marijuana at the workplace or come to work while under the influence of marijuana. Pinetree asserts it has met the bona fide occupational requirement test because Mr$.$ English should not be at work under the influence of a drug, and it could not accommodate Mr$.$ English when safety was at stake.

II THE HEARING

$[3]$ Mr$.$ English testified on his own behalf as to his history with cancer. He also testified as to getting what is known as a $$Green Card$$ which is more properly known as an Authorization to Possess Marijuana for Medical Purposes. Mr$.$ English testified that medical marijuana helped him maintain an appetite while undergoing chemotherapy and helped him deal with the nausea associated with his cancer treatment medication. Mr$.$ English also led evidence from a former co$-$worker Mr$.$ Fells in order to testify as to Mr$.$ English$$s ability and diligence at work. Mr$.$ English was then intending to call his nephew, Sharon George, for the purpose of showing a video of Mr$.$ English operating certain logging equipment. However, as Mr$.$ English$$s abilities were not in dispute, I advised that I did not need to see the video. Mr$.$ English closed his case.

$[4]$ Pinetree$$s first witness was Matt Noles, Logging Foreman. $.$ Pinetree called its remaining witnesses: Paul Hanes $($Skidder Operator$),$ Chad Hanes $($Skidder Operator$),$ Dan Thomas $($Handyman$/$Equipment Operator$)$; Gord Robson $($Equipment Operator$),$ and Ken Redmond $($former Processor Operator$).$

III CREDIBILITY

$[5]$ In making findings of fact, I am guided by the decisions in Faryna v$.$ Chorny, $[1952]2.$ D$.$L$.$R$.354($B$.$C$.$C$.$A$.)$ and Bradshaw v$.$ Stenner, $2010$ BCSC $1398($CanLII$).$ In Faryna v$.$ Chorny, the B$.$C$.$ Court of Appeal stated:

The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carries conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. $($p$.357)$

$[6]$ In Bradshaw v$.$ Stenner, the B$.$C$.$ Supreme Court stated:

Credibility involves an assessment of the trustworthiness of a witness$$ testimony based upon the veracity or sincerity of a witness and the accuracy of the evidence that the witness provides $($Raymond v$.$ Bosanquet $($Township$)(1919),1919$ CanLII $11($SCC$),59$ S$.$C$.$R$.452,50$ D$.$L$.$R$.560($S$.$C$.$C$.)).$ The art of assessment involves examination of various factors such as the ability and opportunity to observe events, the firmness of his memory, the ability to resist the influence of interest to modify his recollection, whether the witness$$ evidence harmonizes with independent evidence that has been accepted, whether the witness changes his testimony during direct and cross$-$examination, whether the witness$$ testimony seems unreasonable, impossible, or unlikely, whether a witness has a motive to lie, and the demeanour of a witness generally $($Wallace v$.$ Davis, $[1926]31$ O$.$W$.$N$.202($Ont$.$ H$.$C$.)$; Farnya v$.$ Chorny, $[1952]2$ D$.$L$.$R$.152($B$.$C$.$C$.$A$.)[$Farnya$]$; R$.$ v$.$ S$.($R$.$D$.),1997$ CanLII $324($SCC$),[1997]3$ S$.$C$.$R$.484$ at para$\mathrm{.}128($S$.$C$.$C$.)).$ Ultimately, the validity of the evidence depends on whether the evidence is consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole and shown to be in existence at the time $($Farnya at para. $356).[$sic$]($para$.186)$

$[7]$ I will deal with credibility below when necessary to the a