Canada’s highest court has given permission for a case involving a former Northern Health Region [NHR] employee to proceed by granting a leave to appeal.
The Manitoba Human Rights Commission (MHRC) announced the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to grant leave to appeal Northern Regional Health Authority v. Linda Horrocks, a case detailing the series of events that led to Horrocks’ eventual dismissal from the body, now known as the Northern Health Region (NHR) in 2012.
The NHR has appealed a 2015 decision from the NHRC ruling it discriminated against former employee Horrocks when she was terminated for alcohol use outside of work. The leave for appeal application was granted by the Supreme Court Feb. 27.
“The Manitoba Human Rights Commission is pleased that the Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal the case of a unionized employee who was terminated from her employment for substance use disorder,” said a statement released by the MHRC March 3. “This case is critically important to determining the rights of unionized employees to file complaints of discrimination under the Human Rights Code,” said Karen Sharma, MHRC executive director in the statement.
According to the Supreme Court brief on the case, Horrocks was working at a personal care home in Flin Flon as a unionized health care aide with the Northern Health Region, then known as the Northern Regional Health Authority (NRHA). The region is referred to as the NRHA in most documents and source material related to the case.
The brief said Horrocks suffered from alcohol dependence, which the NRHA determined to be a disability covered under the collective agreement with Horrocks’ union which contained language meant to forbid discrimination based on physical or mental disabilities.
In June 2011, a supervisor believed Horrocks was intoxicated at work, leading to her being suspended without pay pending an investigation. According to the brief, Horrocks was offered a deal where the health region would allow her to return to work if she signed an agreement demanding total abstinence from alcohol consumption.
“Ms. Horrocks refused to sign the agreement on the basis that it was discriminatory toward a person with a disability,” said the brief.
After a grievance was filed with Horrocks’ union, the health region and the union agreed to terms that would allow Horrocks back to work in April 2012. The terms included abstaining from alcohol and that Horrocks would enter counselling and agree to random drug and alcohol tests.
“Afterward, the NRHA received two reports of Ms. Horrocks being intoxicated outside the workplace. On April 30, 2012, her employment was terminated,” reads the brief, which is publicly available at the Supreme Court of Canada website at scc-csc.ca.
Following her termination, Horrocks brought a complaint under the Human Rights Code.
“The NRHA objected to the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, arguing that the essential character of the dispute underlying the discrimination complaint was within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the collective agreement. The chief adjudicator disagreed and went on to determine that the NRHA had violated the discrimination provisions of the Code on the basis of the complainant’s alcohol dependency disability during her employment.,” reads the brief.
In 2015, Horrocks’ case was heard by the Manitoba Human Rights Adjudication Panel, which deemed that Horrocks had been “unreasonably discriminated against” on the basis of alcohol use disorder when she was fired. The MHRC said in the March 3 statement that during the case, the NHRA had argued Horrocks should have raised any concerns post-termination with her union, “as the essential character of the dispute was within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under their collective agreement.”
The panel’s decision was reviewed by the provincial Court of Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal before reaching the Supreme Court. The NHR applied for leave to appeal in Dec. 2018.
“The Court of Appeal concluded that the reviewing judge erred in overturning the chief adjudicator’s determination as to the essential character of the dispute,” the brief said.
“However, the chief adjudicator also erred by taking too sweeping a view of her jurisdiction.”
According to the MHRC statement, the group believes the case will be heard by the Supreme Court later this year. The court’s website says it receives between 500-600 case applications per year and hears between 60 and 85 appeals annually.
