Thomson v. Rainbow Limited
Obaid Waziri (500386176)
October 18th 2012
Peter Wilson – LAW 529 (410)
Question 1
i. The prohibited ground of discrimination claimed by Richard is disability.
ii. Legal argument in favour of Richard’s claim of disability is that disability can be seen as
a perceived disability where described in Quebec v. Montreal (City) what matters is how a
person is affected by a disability irrespective of its precise nature or cause. Epilepsy is a
disability listed by the HRC and the long hours, the commute from Ottawa and the
continuous deadlines were adding to the stress and getting in the way of his regiment
which he has religiously followed for several years now to avoid the precursors of this
disease. He was discriminated and not accommodated by the staff at Rainbow according to
s.17 of the HRC which states the employer must modify job requirements such as
specialized equipment or services. They instead saw him unfit to do the job and brought in
someone else to do take over responsibilities.
iii. Legal argument against Richard’s claims to disability is that Rainbow had seen how the
work was affecting Richard and how he couldn’t keep up so they tried to accommodate
him by hiring a person to come help with the transition. Accommodating Richard under
s.17 would inevitably cause undue hardship as delays were already happening and with
fewer working hours those delays would exponentially rise. The delays by the transition
team made it evident to everyone of their struggles and thus Rainbow was operating in its
own and Richards best interest by adding another member to ease the burden off of
