Highest court dismisses human rights complaint

A human rights complaint launched by a man suffering from bipolar disorder has been dismissed by the territory’s highest court,

A human rights complaint launched by a man suffering from bipolar disorder has been dismissed by the territory’s highest court, on the basis the various judges and panel members who have heard the case made no legal errors in deciding the case. 

Darrell March first complained to the Yukon Human Rights Commission after he was temporarily suspended from his position in the Department of Environment because of his behaviour at a senior management meeting.

Following his suspension, March’s supervisor recommended he see his doctor, and asked for a medical assessment before March’s return to work.

March ultimately returned to his job in the department and continues to work for the government.

March insisted, to his boss and to the human rights commission, that he didn’t act inappropriately, but rather had responded passionately to a policy change he didn’t agree with.

He accused his boss and the department of discriminating against him by automatically assuming his reaction was related to his bipolarity, not professional passion.

The Yukon government lawyer argued that March’s boss had reason to believe the outburst was directly connected to his mental health issues and asked March to see his doctor to confirm or deny that possibility.

The case was first heard by three members of the Yukon Human Rights Panel of Adjudicators, who dismissed March’s claim.

They found the department’s decision to suspend March, as opposed to imposing some other form of discipline, was based largely on the information March had provided to his co-workers about his disability, and that asking him to take some time off and see a doctor was the most appropriate course of action.

In other words, what March saw as discrimination, the panel saw as accommodation. 

The department went “beyond the normal route of discipline by considering (March’s) medical condition,” the panel decided, by ordering him to take paid time off and seek
medical advice.

With the human rights commission’s support, March appealed the case to Yukon Supreme Court, but Justice Randall Wong took no issue with the panel’s decision and upheld it.

“It must be remembered that the essence of discrimination is arbitrary, negative treatment,” he wrote.

“The fact that March has characteristics of a protected group did not, in and of itself, preclude the government from addressing workplace misconduct.”

In taking his case to the Yukon Court of Appeal, the territory’s highest court subordinate only to the Supreme Court of Canada, March was required to argue there had been an error in law, not simply judgment or opinion, in the two previous decisions.

And although the appeal court can rehear evidence if there is some “overriding” error made by the previous decision makers, the three-judge panel found no such errors.

“I am not persuaded that the (panel of adjudicators) overlooked or misapprehended and material evidence in its deliberation,” writes Justice Kenneth Mackenzie.

“... In summary, the (government) temporarily removed Mr. March from the workplace to address and investigate unacceptable behaviour that they were not required to tolerate. It was not a stereotypical reaction to his mental disability.”