moutal v school district no 38 2013 bchrt 132
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
1/36
Date Issued: May 17, 2013
File: 9969
Indexed as: Moutal v. School District No. 38, 2013 BCHRT 132
IN THE MATTER OF THEHUMAN RIGHTS CODER.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint beforethe British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
B E T W E E N:
Violeta Moutal
COMPLAINANT
A N D:
School District No. 38 (Richmond)
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS: Section 27(1)(b), (c), and (g)
Tribunal Member: Norman Trerise
Counsel for the Complainant: Rose Chin
Counsel for the Respondent: Chris E. Leenheer
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
2/36
1
I INTRODUCTION[1] Violeta Moutal filed a complaint under the Human Rights Code alleging thatSchool District 38 (Richmond) (the District) discriminated against her in the area of
employment on the basis of a mental disability.
[2] She alleges that the District failed to accommodate her in their decisions andactions related to her attendance issues and difficulties with working in the Districts
administrative offices.
[3] The District denies that they discriminated against Ms. Moutal and have appliedto dismiss her complaint pursuant to ss. 27(1) (b), (c), (d) and (g) of the Code.
II FACTUAL BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT[4] Ms. Moutal has been employed by the District since September 14, 1989. She hasworked as a Secretary-District Administrator for the District since April 29, 1996. The
District says that this role is largely secretarial. She performs many duties including
booking appointments for academic advisors and adult students, setting up English
assessments on the computer system and performing data entry of assessment results. She
is routinely required to interact with students.
[5] The clerical employees of the District, including Ms. Moutal, were represented byCUPE, Local 716.
[6] Ms. Moutal took a medical leave of absence in March of 2007 due to a mentalhealth issue. She received long-term disability benefits (LTD) commencing in July of
2007. She was ultimately cleared to return to work in September of 2007 by her
psychiatrist. Medical information provided at that time fully cleared her to return to work
and did not suggest that she required any accommodation.
[7] Ms. Moutal maintained her role as Secretary-District Administrator upon herreturn from her leave of absence.
[8] Ms. Moutals position at the District Office was no longer available when she wasreturned to work on or about November 1, 2007 and accordingly, the District sought an
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
3/36
2
alternative position for her elsewhere in the District. It was determined that there was a
position available for her in the Continuing Education Department.
[9] Ms. Moutal was placed in a temporary position in a support role in ContinuingEducation and eventually for the Adult Secondary School Completion Program, reportingto the Director of Continuing Education. She remained classified as Secretary-District
Administrator. The majority of her work was carried out at the Sea Island Adult Learning
Centre (Sea Island).
[10] There was no direct supervisor for Ms. Moutal at the Sea Island location.[11] In discussions with Ms. Moutal prior to placing her in the Continuing EducationDepartment, it became evident that she was resistant to working at Sea Island in part
because of a history between herself and another employee with whom she would have to
work at Sea Island.
[12] A meeting was held on December 17, 2007 involving representatives of theDistrict, the President of CUPE, Local 716, and Ms. Moutal. At that meeting, Ms. Moutal
expressed concern regarding a permanent placement at Sea Island in part because one of
the individuals she would be required to work with and she did not get along. In response,
Don Kaltenbach, District Administrator Human Resources for the District, pointed out
that it would be difficult for her to return to work in the District Office because of pasthistory in an attempt to persuade her that the change would be in her best interest.
Ultimately, Ms. Moutal accepted the permanent position at Sea Island.
[13] When Ms. Moutal returned to work, the District was aware that she scheduledweekly visits with a medical professional during her lunch breaks on Wednesdays. The
District says there was no communication with them that these visits related to a mental
disability. In November of 2007, an arrangement was made which allowed Ms. Moutal to
take a longer lunch on Wednesdays and in exchange take shorter lunch breaks onTuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays.
[14] Mr. Kaltenbach deposes that as District Administrator Human Resources, hisduties include responsibility for posting and filling staff positions, negotiating and
applying the Collective Agreement and dealing with grievances under the Collective
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
4/36
3
Agreement in connection with support staff. He is authorized to maintain employee
personnel files on behalf of the District.
[15] Michael Khoo is the Director of Instruction Continuing Education RichmondSchool District and has been serving in that capacity since April of 2007. He oversees thevarious District Continuing Education Programs for adults and school-aged students. The
District offers personal interest courses, Adult English as a Second Language courses and
settlement programs. In his role, he manages a varying number of staff over three to four
separate locations.
[16] It immediately became evident that Ms. Moutal was having difficulty attendingbetween the normal work hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and Mr. Khoo became aware
of that fact. He spoke to Ms. Moutal on several occasions emphasizing that she was to
attend work at 8:30. She was directed to inform Mr. Khoo if she was going to be late for
work.
[17] Further, Ms. Moutal was required to visit her physician on Wednesdays. Sheasserts that she advised Mr. Khoo that she was visiting her psychiatrist. Mr. Khoo says
otherwise. What is agreed is that she was provided with an extended lunch on
Wednesdays to facilitate these appointments and a truncated lunch period on Tuesdays,
Thursdays and Fridays to compensate.
[18] Over time, Mr. Khoo became aware of her tardiness in part because of reportsfrom Ms. Moutals alienated co-worker. Mr. Khoo attempted to manage her attendance.
He spoke to Ms. Moutal on several occasions to clarify the expectation that she was to
attend at work at 8:30 a.m. and that in exchange for the longer lunch hour on
Wednesdays, she was to take abbreviated lunches on other weekdays.
[19] In response to the Districts concerns, Ms. Moutal advised Mr. Khoo that she wasstruggling to attend by 8:30 a.m., expressed concern about being micro-managed, andtook issue with the fact that her co-worker was reporting her absence and other absences
were being managed by Mr. Khoo. She advised that she never short-changed her
employer because she would work past 4:30 on days when she arrived late. She did not
advise that her tardiness was attributable to any mental disability. She does say that she
had specifically told Mr. Khoo that on Wednesdays she attended with her psychiatrist.
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
5/36
4
[20] Over time, she continued to be tardy and rarely alerted the District to her lateness.[21] At some point prior to May of 2010, Ms. Moutals work schedule was modified toallow for a 9:00 a.m. start and 5:00 p.m. finish to her work days Monday through Friday.
[22] Despite these modifications to her schedule, Ms. Moutal continued to havedifficulty attending work on time.
[23] It is common ground that when Mr. Khoo was attempting to manage Ms.Moutals attendance, at no point did he inquire whether there were medical
considerations affecting her ability to attend work on time.
[24] Ms. Moutal states that on the morning of April 28, 2010, when she arrived atwork, Mr. Khoos vehicle was in the parking lot but all of the lights in the building were
off. She turned the lights on and immediately saw Mr. Khoo sitting in the dark by himself
in the office he occupied when he was at Sea Island. Mr. Khoo questioned Ms. Moutal
about her attendance and Ms. Moutal deposes that his attitude was hostile such that she
cried and pleaded with him to understand her circumstances. She says that Mr. Khoo was
unresponsive and left and that on May 4, 2010, she received a letter from him advising
that an investigation is going to take place regarding her tardiness.
[25] Mr. Khoo paints quite a different picture saying that in order to gain access to Ms.Moutals office at Sea Island, it is necessary to either walk through an unlit storage room
or through a classroom. He says he chose to walk through the storage room which
explains why he emerged from the dark. He acknowledges that there was a discussion
with respect to her tardiness and says that he stressed his concern that she was to alert
him when she was late for work and point out that she had not done so on this occasion.
He says that during the various meetings and discussions he had with Ms. Moutal over
time regarding her attendance at work, she never once indicated she had difficulty
attending work on time because of a mental disability.
[26] An investigation was conducted into Ms. Moutals tardiness in 2010. During themeeting related to the aforementioned investigation, Ms. Moutal explained that the
mornings continued to be problematic for her and requested a change in her hours to
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
6/36
5
allow her to work from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. She says that Mr. Kaltenbach refused the
request without exploring it with her.
[27] The meeting which took place on May 13, 2010 was followed up by a letter ofexpectation from Mr. Kaltenbach setting out the expectation that Ms. Moutal was to be ather desk at 9:00 a.m., her hours of work and the arrangement with respect to lunch
breaks. It stated that if she needed to deviate from that schedule for any reason she was to
get prior approval from Mr. Khoo and if she was going to be late for the start of her shift
or late from returning from her relief break or lunch break for any reason, she was
required to notify Mr. Khoo by telephone as soon as she arrived at her workplace.
[28] Mr. Khoo asserts that, while the co-worker did on occasion inform the Districtthat Ms. Moutal was not at work, the District did not enlist the co-worker to provide
information to assist them to supervise the Complainant. She was never requested to
monitor Ms. Moutals absences from work.
[29] Mr. Khoo deposes that he requested all support staff communicate with him withrespect to their absences or tardiness and attaches to his Affidavit a January 9, 2009
memorandum to staff at Sea Island and perhaps other locations, evidencing that fact.
[30] Ms. Moutal was required to attend another meeting on March 23, 2011 to discussher tardiness issues. She was advised that she was entitled to be represented by a Unionrepresentative and the Union was copied on the letter advising her of the meeting. Ms.
Moutal suggests that Mr. Khoo expressed his uncertainty respecting the accuracy of
certain dates that he suggests she was tardy attending work. Mr. Khoo, on the contrary,
says that he advised her that the list was not complete and that there were other dates
where he believed she had been late for work but he could not verify. He says the dates
discussed in the meeting were accurate. The dates discussed were five in number in the
months of February and March 2011.
[31] Subsequently on April 26, 2011, a meeting was held attended by Mr. Kaltenbach,the President of the Union and Ms. Moutal. At the meeting, Mr. Kaltenbach advised Ms.
Moutal that he wanted her to report to the District Administration Office commencing
Monday, May 2, 2011. Mr. Khoo deposes that Ms. Moutal did not indicate that she
suffered from a mental disability that impaired her ability to meet the Districts
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
7/36
6
expectation with respect to attendance and timeliness at that meeting. Neither did she
indicate that a mental disability prevented her from working at the District Office. He
says that he didnt become aware of Ms. Moutals health concerns until April 27, 2011
when she provided a letter from her psychiatrist to Mr. Kaltenbach which was
subsequently shown to him.
[32] That letter states, among other things: In the course of therapy, Ms. Moutal made a remarkable recovery from a severe
mental breakdown in 2006. Following a medical leave of absence she was able to
successfully return to full time-work.
For the past three years, one of Ms. Moutals main ongoing challenges revolvedaround her work situation. As a result of that, some of her therapy sessions
focused on helping her deal effectively with the conditions of her employment,
work environment and the nature of her communication with her supervisor.
Ms. Moutal is currently under considerable stress and has endured significanthardship due to her supervisors repeated official allegations regarding Ms.
Moutals hours of work. Ms. Moutal informed Dr. Minhas recently that as a result
of these contentions, she has been subjected to disciplinary actions and has been
directed to relocate her office to the Main Administration Building so that she can
be better supervised and monitored.
In my opinion, this move could be detrimental to Ms. Moutals mental health andwell-being, due to past work-related trauma in that specific work location and her
tenuous working relationship with her current supervisor.
I wish to note that Ms. Moutal takes psychotropic medications as part of hertherapy, which cause adverse effects that mostly interfere with her functioning in
the morning. I understand that the medication created a sluggish state in the
mornings, which led to her being late to work.
I strongly recommend that Ms. Moutal be given special consideration for heroccasional morning tardiness. It will be beneficial if her hours are more flexible
and can better meet her needs.
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
8/36
7
Similarly, I strongly recommend that Ms. Moutal remain at her current worklocation at Sea Island Learning Centre and receive the support that she needs to
fulfill the duties of her work there. I strongly recommend not to transfer her back
to the same environment where she experienced her mental breakdown in the
past.
[33] Ms. Moutal deposes that the suggestion of returning me to the AdministrationBuilding caused me severe stress and anxiety. I had an overwhelming fear of returning to
work to a building where I intended to end my life. I genuinely believe working at that
place on a daily basis posed a threat to my health and safety.
[34] After receiving the psychiatrists letter of April 27, 2011, Mr. Kaltenbachcorresponded with Ms. Moutal requesting further information from her psychiatrist. The
psychiatrist responded with a letter dated May 22, 2011 in which he stated:
Even though Ms. Moutal was in full remission by the time of our previous
communication had taken place (see my letter from April 27, 2011)
currently there is a severe regression in her condition and she is at high
risk for developing a full blown relapse of her symptomatology. Whileexperiencing full remission of her condition Ms. Moutal is able to perform
the required duties or administrative job at the required level.
[35] In addition, the letter from the psychiatrist advises that when Ms. Moutalexperiences full remission from her illness, her condition doesnt prevent her from
attending her job on time. It also advises that the psychotropic medication she is
prescribed increases the degree of fatigue she experiences in the mornings and that those
medications are a major factor in her difficulties in arriving at her job at the required
time.
[36] The letter also says that the prognosis for Ms. Moutal to achieve a full remissionis a very positive one provided adaptations for her condition exist. It further says there is
no reason to assume that with the proper adaptations she will not be successful in
regaining her normal function. I understand that with the term adaptations he is
referring to accommodations.
[37] The letter goes on to state that when Ms. Moutal is in full remission, her ability towork at the Richmond School Board Administration Department is returned to normal. It
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
9/36
8
further states that her future exposure to the building (the District Administration Office)
and to the people in it severely increases the risk for a relapse.
[38] The psychiatrist also says that Currently, Ms. Moutal has unfortunatelyredeveloped severe signs of relapse of her anxiety episodes. He also says that hersymptoms can result from a medical condition as well so she is currently being
investigated by her family physician to rule out any medical condition. He says that it is
quite possible that her symptoms are part of her relapse of her anxiety condition relating
to the recent stress over the last couple of months around her employment. With the
accommodation she needs and the support I am confident she will get from her employer,
Ms. Moutal is likely to regain full remission and will be able to perform the full duties of
her job. He makes it clear that she should not return to the District Administration
Office.
[39] Mr. Kaltenbach responded that the letter from her psychiatrist providesinsufficient information to support a conclusion that she is unable to return to work at the
District Administration Office. Further, Mr. Kaltenbach says that she is to return to work
at the District Administration Office on June 30, 2011 and that if she refuses to report to
work then she will be required to undergo an independent medical examination (IME)
by a psychiatrist of the Districts choosing.
[40] The Union intervened. Ultimately, it was agreed that Ms. Moutal participate in anindependent medical examination (IME) limited to the issue of her need for
accommodation.
[41] Ms. Moutal says that she informed Mr. Khoo that she would be taking a vacationin August of 2011 and that Mr. Khoo responded that he needed to confirm that this
request would be feasible. Ms. Moutal says that this is another example of discrimination.
The District responds that Mr. Khoo needed to confirm that granting Ms. Moutals
vacation request would not compromise the available manning thus creating a cost to the
Continuing Education Department. Ultimately, Ms. Moutals vacation request was
approved.
[42] In August of 2011, a psychiatrist retained by the School District to provide anIME of Ms. Moutal provided his opinion which disagreed with the material provided by
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
10/36
9
Ms. Moutals psychiatrist and can be summarized as stating that Ms. Moutal, at the time
of his examination, did not present with any clinically significant
psychological/emotional disturbances or cognitive deficits which would affect her ability
to perform her current occupational duties, that her mental health issue is in remission
and has nothing to do with her difficulties attending work on time.
[43] The District accepted the opinion of the psychiatrist they had retained and onSeptember 6, 2011 confirmed their decision to reassign Ms. Moutal to the District Office
effective September 12, 2011 and reiterated the expectation that she attend work between
the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., take one hour for lunch and two 15-minute relief
breaks during her shift, thereby effectively deviating from the accommodated lunch
arrangement which had been in place previously.
[44] The District received a letter from Ms. Moutals psychiatrist expressing seriousconcern respecting their decision and reiterating his strong recommendation that they
refrain from requiring Ms. Moutal to report to work at the District Administration Office.
He states:
An acute exposure of Ms. Moutal to the place which was a scene of her
last major breakdown puts her at a very high risk of her relapse of hersymptoms and might destabilize her mental health leading to another
collapse including the risk for re-emerging of self-harm ideations and
actions. I believe that putting a hold on such abrupt directive and movingto a process in negotiating the best work scenario for Ms. Moutal would
turn a very dangerous situation to a much safer one where both Ms.Moutals and the RSBs interests are secured and will support her gainful
and worthy employment within the RSB.
I emphasize that currently Ms. Moutal is experiencing more acute stress
related symptoms that warrant a possible mental collapse given that for the
past several months she has endured a painstaking process that she feelshas threatened integrity, job security and livelihood and it would likely
have a detrimental effect on any individual, let alone on Ms. Moutal whose
medical history warrants the minimization of stress causing anxiety andworry.
[45] On the same day, Mr. Kaltenbach wrote, not to the psychiatrist, but to Ms. Moutalstating:
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
11/36
10
In our view, the letter of Dr. Minhas dated September 9, 2011 does not
provide us any basis upon which to change our decision to require you towork at the District Office. We accept the opinion of Dr. Levin which is
that you do not suffer from any present mental condition that would
prevent her from returning to work at the District Office.
You are required to report to the District Office on Monday, September
12th
. If you intend to take sick time we will require a full medicalassessment from your doctor outlining your medical condition, why you
were unable to report to work at the District Office, any measures the
employer may undertake to assist you in your return to work at the DistrictOffice, as well as your prognosis for returning to full time duties at the
District Office. We note that we reserve our right to require additional
medical information if required, as well as to seek any independent review
of such medical information to confirm an inability to attend work. Anyrequests for other unpaid leaves will be considered by the Administration.
[46] Ms. Moutal responded by advising on September 9, 2011 that she would be takinga medical leave of absence effective Monday, September 12
th.
[47] Dr. Minhas provided a letter dated September 14, 2011 supporting Ms. Moutalssick leave.
[48] Mr. Kaltenbach responded to the situation with a letter dated September 15, 2011addressed to Ms. Moutal in which he stated:
This is a formal notice that you are currently on an unsubstantiated leavefrom work. We require you to immediately provide us with medicaldocumentation explaining your current absence from work. In addition,
depending on the medical documentation we may request further medical
information and/or may consider your current absence to be unpaid.
[49] Mr. Kaltenbach in the same letter suggested that, in the circumstances, the Districtwould be required to explore the option of recruiting another instructor and indicated that
if Ms. Moutal was to retain her Continuing Education position she needed to notify the
District by September 20th
that she would be available on or before September 26th
to
resume her regular duties at the District Administrative Office.
[50] That communication was followed up by another letter to Ms. Moutal from Mr.Kaltenbach dated September 21, 2011 acknowledging receipt of Dr. Minhas letter and
reiterating that the IME:
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
12/36
11
Clearly indicates that you are not suffering from any medical condition
preventing you from reporting to work at the Administration Office.
and
We do not accept Dr. Minhas letter of September 14, 2011 to support a
claim for any continued absence or payment of sick leave benefits. Ifyou do not return to work by Monday, October 3, 2011 we will review
your continued employment with the School District.
[51] At this point on September 22nd, Ms. Moutals general practitioner provided anote that said she was unable to attend work for four to six weeks for medical reasons.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the District did not feel that the certificate from the general
practitioner provided sufficient information on which to change their position.
[52] Accordingly, Ms. Moutals general practitioner wrote a letter indicating that as ofSeptember 22, 2011, Ms. Moutal was demonstrating symptoms of a mixed mood disorder
worsening in the face of work pressures she perceived as unfair.
[53] On October 3, 2011, Mr. Kaltenbach emailed Ms. Moutal indicating that hergeneral practitioners letter of September 28, 2011 did not provide the District with
sufficient information on which to change their current position on her request for sick
leave. It concludes with the phrase:
If you do not report to work at the Administration Office after four weeks,or sooner, we will review your employment with the School District,
including determining whether you have abandoned your employment.
[54] Finally on October 5, 2011, Dr. Minhas wrote to Mr. Kaltenbach emphasizing thathis note of sick leave based on her mental state as presented on September 14
thas well as
the general practitioners note of sick leave based on her examination of Ms. Moutal on
September 22nd
were both addressing Ms. Moutals current mental health condition
which had significantly deteriorated since the time she was seen by Dr. Levin, the
independent psychiatrist. Further, he states that a relapse of Ms. Moutals anxiety/moodsymptoms had in fact occurred and states that the interaction between the District and Ms.
Moutal in his opinion is taking a severe toll on Ms. Moutal and is negatively affecting
her mental well being.
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
13/36
12
[55] On September 27, 2011 a report was issued by an investigator retained by theDistrict to investigate an allegation of harassment of Ms. Moutal by Mr. Khoo (the
Investigation Report). The Investigation Report dealt with some of the issues before the
Tribunal, including Mr. Khoos micro-management of Ms. Moutal, the use of a co-
worker to advise of tardiness, the incident of Mr. Khoo sitting or emerging from the dark,
an inappropriate comment by Mr. Khoo and the delay in approving Ms. Moutals
vacation. It concluded that harassment had not occurred and that the Collective
Agreement had not been violated. It also specifically stated that Although there are
references in this report to the issue of accommodation for a medical condition, this
investigation was limited to an examination of the complaint of the harassment made by
the Complainant against the Respondent. The issue of duty to accommodate has not been
explored by this investigation.
III THE DISTRICTS APPLICATION TO DISMISSSection 27(1)(g) Timeliness of the Complaint
[56] The District submits that all conduct occurring prior to April 26, 2011, being sixmonths prior to October 26, 2011 (the date that the Complaint was filed) are late filed.
[57] The District submits that none of the alleged acts of discrimination whichoccurred prior to April 26, 2011 constitute a continuing contravention because none of
the incidents alleged could be a violation of the Codeand because there is no similarity
between the events which occurred post April 26, 2011 and those which occurred earlier.
The District says the only events which occurred post April 26, 2011 are the decision of
Mr. Kaltenbach to reassign Ms. Moutal to a different office building, the subsequent back
and forth between the parties with respect to medical documentation, and Ms. Moutals
assertions with respect to the scheduling of her vacation.
[58] In the alternative, the District says that the allegations relating to Mr. Khoosimpugned conduct are not supported by any nexus between Ms. Moutals assertions that
Mr. Khoo was micro-managing and supervising her too closely and her alleged mental
disability. They point to medical documentation that her medical condition was in full
remission as of September 2007 and remained in full remission until 2011. They also say
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
14/36
13
that there is no similarity in substance or pattern to the alleged conduct of Mr. Khoo
during the six-month time limit and those that were filed out of time. They therefore
submit that none of the allegations concerning Mr. Khoos conduct are part of a timely
continuing contravention.
[59] They also say that the Tribunal should not exercise its discretion to accept the outof time allegations and that they should therefore be dismissed. For reasons that will
become evident, I do not articulate their arguments in this regard.
Section 27(1)(b) No Contravention of the Code
[60] The District submits that the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety on thebasis that the acts or omissions alleged in the Complaint allege facts which, even if
proven, do not constitute a contravention of the Code. They say this because they say
there is no evidence of a mental disability sufficient to satisfy Ms. Moutals requirement
to prove a prima facie case, no evidence of adverse treatment of Ms. Moutal by the
District, and no nexus between any adverse treatment that the Tribunal might find and
Ms. Moutals mental disability (should the Tribunal disagree with their submission that
there is insufficient evidence to establish a mental disability).
Section 27(1)(c) No Reasonable Prospect of Success
[61] The District says that the Complaint should be dismissed under s. 27(1)(c) on thebasis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Complaint will succeed.
[62] The School District has compartmentalized its submissions with respect to s.27(1)(c). I will utilize the same subheadings.
Allegations Against Mr. Khoo
[63] The School District submits that the allegations that Mr. Khoo was rude to Ms.Moutal, micro-managed her attendance at work, used information from co-workers
regarding Ms. Moutals absences or required Ms. Moutal to report her tardiness to him do
not provide a basis upon of which a finding of discrimination can succeed.
[64] The School District submits that Mr. Khoo was unaware of any medical conditionMs. Moutal may have been suffering from. They say it was his understanding that she
was in full remission and that she had been cleared to work without accommodation.
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
15/36
14
They say that Mr. Khoo denies supervising Ms. Moutal too closely and that Ms. Moutal
never indicated she was suffering from a mental disability which caused her to be tardy.
[65] The School District submits that Dr. Minhas reports are directly contradicted bythe independent expert retained by the parties.
[66] The School District submits that all support staff were required to email Mr. Khoorespecting intended absences and tardiness. He says the same applies to requiring staff to
work at varying locations when staffing levels required it.
[67] The School District further states that there is no nexus between Mr. Khoosdelayed approval of Ms. Moutals vacation request and her mental disability. They say
the vacation was approved, after a delay to allow Mr. Khoo to ensure that his department
would have sufficient staffing levels in Ms. Moutals absence.
[68] The School District submits that these allegations by Ms. Moutal amount tonothing more than allegations of harassment which have been independently investigated
and found to be unsubstantiated.
The Allegation Regarding the Decision to Relocate Ms. Moutal
[69] The School District says that the decision to relocate Ms. Moutal to the DistrictAdministration Office was arrived at in conjunction with the Union because she was
unsupervised in the Sea Island position and she had breached the letter of expectation
provided to her.
[70] The School District says that at the time the decision was made to relocate Ms.Moutal to the District Office there was no indication she was suffering from a mental
disability. They say in any event that their conduct was not related to Ms. Moutals
medical history or alleged disability.
Allegations Regarding Acceptance of Ms. Moutals Medical Evidence
[71] The School District submits that the medical evidence which Ms. Moutalprovided to them was internally inconsistent, did not indicate she was suffering from a
disability at the time, and did not suggest that she had an illness which required
accommodation. They say that, as a result, the IME was carried out and resulted in a clear
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
16/36
15
and conclusive determination that Ms. Moutal was not suffering from a mental disability
and did not require accommodation.
[72] The School District says that it was in the aforesaid context that they repeatedlyrejected the completely uninformative medical notes provided by Ms. Moutal.
[73] The School District says that once Ms. Moutal provided medical informationwhich confirmed that she was ill and required a leave of absence they began the process
of approving her sick leave.
[74] The School District says that Ms. Moutal has yet to provide adequate medicaldocumentation to support her assertion that she cannot work under supervision or in the
District Administration Office. They say that their requests for additional medical
information regarding her unsubstantiated leave of absence and her expected return to
work were a reasonable request from a reasonable employer to an employees extended
leave of absence where medical documentation has been sparse, vague and conflicting.
[75] The School District says that it was entitled to delay in approving Ms. Moutalssick leave until it satisfied itself of her medical condition.
[76] The School District submits that the delay in approving Ms. Moutals sick leavewas caused in part by Dr. Minhas request to deal with the District directly, and by the
grievance process because the School District had to have its actions approved by the
Union.
IV THE POSITION OF MS. MOUTAL RESPECTING THE APPLICATIONTO DISMISS
[77] The District set out, as a preliminary matter, a concern that Ms. Moutal may haveobtained consent to an extension to file her response submission through a
misrepresentation. The District never actually opposed the late filing of the response. Ms.
Moutal appears to have adequately addressed the issue under separate communication
dated March 20, 2013 and the District did not respond. In view of the fact that no
application is in front of me from the District on the issue, I will consider all submissions
in my analysis of this application.
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
17/36
16
Section 27(1)(g) Timeliness of the Complaint
[78] Ms. Moutal says that she was discriminated against due to her mental disabilitybecause the District failed to accommodate her on the basis of that disability which
contributed to her pattern of tardiness at work and made her unable to work in the DistrictOffice. She says, further, that the District ought to have accommodated her disability by
engaging in a process of inquiry prior to taking action with adverse consequences to her
and ought to have chosen to minimize workplace stressors for her that similarly had
adverse consequences.
[79] She says that she provided medical documentation from her treating psychiatristwhich supported her need for accommodation and that instead of acceding to the request
of accommodation, the District proceeded with a process of distrustful micro-
management and progressive discipline. She says the Districts approach culminated in
the extreme measure of requiring that she relocate to the District Administrative Office
where the incident which resulted in her extensive absenteeism for medical reasons prior
to her return in 2007 had occurred.
[80] Ms. Moutal says that the allegations pre-dating April 26, 2011 are part of acontinuing contravention and that, following the concept of a liberal and purposive
interpretation required in assessing a continuing contravention, the intent of the Code is
not to impose unreasonably strict adherence to dates to reject the Complaint on the basis
of timeliness, but rather the Tribunal must consider the overall course of conduct alleged
in determining whether a complaint falls within the time limitations.
[81] Ms. Moutal says that all of the Districts disciplinary actions are part of an overallcontinuous course of action that Ms. Moutal alleges is in contravention of the Code.
Section 27(1)(b) No Contravention of the Code
Disability
[82] Ms. Moutal submits that the Districts position that the acts or omissions allegedin the Complaint do not constitute a contravention of the Codebecause Ms. Moutal has
failed to establish that she suffered from a disability during the relevant timeframe is not
consistent with human rights jurisprudence that encourages Tribunals to adopt a broad
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
18/36
17
and liberal approach in applying the Code. In particular, she says that it has been
determined by the Supreme Court of Canada that the duty to accommodate applies to
ongoing disabilities. In that regard, she points toMorris v. B.C. Rail, 2003 BCHRT 14 at
paragraphs 205 to 209 where the Tribunal points out that the Supreme Court of Canada
has held that disability includes persons who have overcome all functional limitations and
who are limited in their everyday activities only by the prejudices of stereotypes that are
associated with a particular ground. Ms. Moutal says that conditions such as congenital
and malformations, asthma, speech impediments, obesity, acne, and being HIV positive,
even when they do not result in a functional limitation, come within the concept of
disability,Morris.
[83] Ms. Moutal therefore urges that the term disability should not be so strictly andnarrowly defined to only apply to present disabilities. She urges that to do so would not
be consistent with the intent and purposes of the Code.
[84] Ms. Moutal says that given her history, the information that was made available tothe District, and her complaints to them, as well as the letters provided by Dr. Minhas,
there is prima facie evidence of a disability. She points out that the Districts duty to
accommodate does not necessarily end once an employee recovers from a disability and
returns to work. She urges that the District cannot act in ignorance of Ms. Moutals
limitations or potential limitations.
[85] Ms. Moutal says that the District is attempting to compartmentalize her disability,which is not only a superficial approach but is an approach that was expressly rejected by
the Supreme Court of Canada in McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General
Hospital) v. Syndicat des employs de lHpital gnral de Montral, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 4.
[86] Ms. Moutal says that the District had sufficient information that they were under aduty to inquire respecting whether her difficulties were at all related to her disability.
[87] Ms. Moutal submits that once a clear request for accommodation was madethrough Dr. Minhas letter of April 27, 2011, the District had an obligation to
meaningfully engage in a cooperative process with her which they failed to do.
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
19/36
18
[88] Ms. Moutal further says that the District should have given weight to Dr. Minhasopinions and sought a specific response to the independent medical physicians
conclusions but it chose not to. She says that the District cannot chose to rely solely on
information helpful to its case in order to make its decisions. She points out that Dr.
Minhas was her treating psychiatrist and he should have been provided with the
opportunity to explain his opinion and respond to the IME. She further points out that the
independent medical examination was in error when it states that her medication would
not be expected to cause Ms. Moutals reported morning psychological and physical
disturbance and provides an excerpt from the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and
Specialties which expressly states that the medication in question includes side effects
such as insomnia, somnolence and fatigue.
[89] Ms. Moutal further says that the fact that she did not initially requestaccommodation for her tardiness does not justify the Districts failure to accommodate. It
is pointed out that the need for accommodation does not rest solely on the Complainant
but rather is a process where both parties bear responsibility.
Nexus
[90] Ms. Moutal states that the nexus is clear. She says that she suffered from a severemental disability. She made a recovery from a mental breakdown and the debilitating
aspect of her condition appeared to be in sufficient remission to allow her to work. She
says however that she was still sensitive to stressors which could trigger a relapse and re-
emergence of her major depression. She points out that the District, during a meeting of
October 22, 2007, demonstrated awareness that the previous workplace could have
consequences to her well being in its attempt to justify her relocation to the Sea Island
office.
[91] Ms. Moutal says the symptoms of stress and anxiety reported by her andsupported by her psychiatrist cannot be viewed in isolation so as to dismiss their
relationship to a disability. She says that the District and, in particular, Mr. Kaltenbach
and Mr. Khoo should have been aware of her mental disability based on the information
that had been presented to them.
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
20/36
19
[92] Ms. Moutal submits that the allegations demonstrate a consistent refusal toaccommodate her on the basis of her disability as a whole.
[93] Effectively, Ms. Moutal is stating that the actions of the District through Mr.Kaltenbach and Mr. Khoo demonstrated a failure to accommodate which has a clearconnection to her mental disability and that the nexus is therefore obvious.
Section 27(1)(c) No Reasonable Prospect of Success
[94] Ms. Moutal states that, taking her medical history into consideration, theComplaint goes well beyond the scope of an ordinary workplace dispute. She says this
Complaint is about a person who has a lengthy background of a serious mental disability
that has resulted in a series of sick leaves and an eventual breakdown in the workplace,
all of which was known to the School District. She says that the School District was
aware that, upon her return to work, she continued with her therapy and her medications
and that those facts put the School District on notice that some degree of ongoing
disability was likely present.
[95] Ms. Moutal says that the School District failed to seek relevant medicalinformation when confronted with her tardiness and that the School District should have
been sensitive to, not only the action it was taking, but also to how she responded to
pressure and stressors in the workplace. She refers specifically to the School Districtshandling of the conflict with her co-worker, the reliance on her co-workers, and other
third parties, reporting to Mr. Khoo, the communication of her tardiness to other
departmental staff, the disclosure to her co-worker of Ms. Moutals visits to her
psychiatrist, and the heavy-handed disciplinary steps taken.
[96] Ms. Moutal points out that Mr. Kaltenbachs assertions that he treated her nodifferently than he would have treated any other District employee and Mr. Khoos
assertions that he treated all staff in an equitable manner, reveals a lack of understandingin the School District of the nature of its duty to accommodate.
[97] Ms. Moutal says that when Dr. Minhas provided the School District with his letterof April 27, 2011, the School District had clear notice that her tardiness was related to the
medication she was taking.
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
21/36
20
[98] Ms. Moutal asserts that, from the time she was placed in the ContinuingEducation Department, the evidence indicates that the School District was engaged in a
hostile campaign towards her where either no tolerance was going to be exercised, or no
support would be given for the accommodation she required on the basis of her disability.
[99] Ms. Moutal says that in September 2011 when she sought medical leave theSchool District demonstrated an obstinate attitude in its handling of the situation. She
says the School District deliberately ignored the medical information provided by her,
causing her emotional and financial hardship, and again demonstrating no effort to
engage in a process of accommodation.
[100] Ms. Moutal submits that the School Districts conduct actually indicates a degreeof malice as it refused to accept her medical notes from two physicians.
[101] Ms. Moutal points out that the internal investigation was pursuant to theCollective Agreement provisions relating to general harassment/sexual harassment. Ms.
Moutal says that the investigators findings are not determinative of her Complaint.
[102] Ms. Moutal submits that, in light of the two diametrically opposed versions of theincidents relating to Mr. Khoos conduct, the School Districts conduct as a whole, and
the significance of the contradictory and medical opinions, it cannot be said that the
Complaint has no reasonable prospect of success.
V THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS REPLY TO MS. MOUTALS RESPONSESubmissions re Section 27(1)(g)
[103] The School District repeats that the timely allegations are not of the same natureas the earlier allegations that Ms. Moutal was micro-managed by Mr. Khoo. They say,
accordingly, there is no basis for finding a continuing contravention.
[104] The School District takes issue with Ms. Moutals contention that the SchoolDistrict engaged in a successive course of disciplining her and refusing her request for
accommodation. They point out that, despite her tardiness and long lunch breaks, she was
not disciplined but merely provided with a letter of expectation. They say, further, that
they allowed Ms. Moutal to modify her lunch schedule, modify her work hours and
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
22/36
21
sought medical information in connection with her assertion that she could not be moved
back to the District Office. Further, they say that Ms. Moutals suggestion that they
treated her in a hostile manner by taking disciplinary action seriously misconstrued
events. They say that Ms. Moutal did not, despite multiple opportunities, provide an
explanation which suggested that her tardiness in general and inability to work her
scheduled hours were connected in any way to any protected ground.
Submissions re Section 27(1)(b)
[105] The School District submits that the arguments of Ms. Moutal that she wassuffering from a disability and that the School District ought to have known or inquired
about that disability are ill-founded and that the case law advanced by Ms. Moutal in
support of her position does not do so.
[106] The School District further says that it acted in an informed manner, given theinformation that had been provided to it. They say that Ms. Moutal was given numerous
opportunities to explain her tardiness, extended lunch breaks and departures from work
without permission but never related them to a mental disability. They further say that she
was fully cleared to return to her duties and that the subsequent medical information
provided by her psychiatrist did not clearly state that she was suffering from a mental
disability which prevented her from working at the District Office.
[107] They further state that the medical information provided by Ms. Moutalspsychiatrist contained nothing which definitively indicated that she was suffering from a
mental disability or provided any explanation for her pattern of taking extended lunch
breaks, leaving work without permission and failing to inform Mr. Khoo of her absences
or changes in schedule.
[108] The School District stresses that Ms. Moutal agreed to the IME and to be boundby the results of the independent experts assessment. They dispute that they ought tohave rejected the independent experts opinion in light of Dr. Minhas letter in response
to the report. They say, in fact, that Dr. Minhas September 9, 2011 letter isnt a response
to the IME since it states that Dr. Minhas has no knowledge of the content of the IME.
They say that they chose to give weight to the medical evidence of an independent
medical expert which they were entitled to do.
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
23/36
22
[109] The School District submits that there were no obvious signs that Ms. Moutal mayhave been suffering from a mental disability, and that, although she was given numerous
opportunities to explain her tardiness, extended lunch breaks and general attendance
problems were related to a mental disability, she chose not to do so.
[110] The School District relies on case law which essentially determines that wherethere is no factual support of a link between a disability and adverse repercussions
experienced by the complainant, the complaint must be dismissed.
[111] The School District submits that an excerpt from the Compendium ofPharmaceuticals and Specialties presented by Ms. Moutal through an Affidavit of a legal
assistant is hearsay and cannot be relied upon to refute the expert evidence of the
independent medical expert respecting the side effects of Zoloft. Accordingly, the School
District submits that Ms. Moutals arguments respecting the validity of Dr. Levins
opinions respecting the impact of Zoloft should be ignored.
Submissions re Section 27(1)(c)
[112] The School District disputes that conflicting affidavit evidence prevents acomplaint from being dismissed on a s. 27 application.
[113] The School District also takes issue with Ms. Moutals characterization that it wasaware of a lengthy background with a serious mental disability resulting in a series of
sick leaves and an eventual breakdown in the workplace. They also dispute awareness
that upon her return to work in her new position, Ms. Moutal continued with her therapy
and her medications in order to manage her symptoms and be functional. The School
District says that Ms. Moutal was never working under an accommodation upon her
return to work. They say that the attempts to alter Ms. Moutals work schedule were to
assist her with attendance issues, that she was spoken to on numerous occasions
regarding tardiness, excessive lunch breaks and her pattern of leaving work withoutpermission and failing to notify her supervisor of changes in her schedule. They say that
aside from receiving a letter of expectation, the Complainant was not subject to any
disciplinary response in connection with her performance issues.
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
24/36
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
25/36
24
[119] The Tribunal also stated in Dove v. Greater Vancouver Regional District, 2006BCHRT 197 (Dove No. 2):
At the same time, the concept of the continuing contravention must be
applied in a manner which is fair to respondents. In giving the concept the
liberal and purposive interpretation it requires, it must not be used toimproperly sweep in allegations which would otherwise be far outside the
Codestime limits. It is largely for this reason that in considering whether
a continuing contravention has been alleged the Tribunal will also consider
how large any gaps in time between the alleged contraventions may be;see, for example, Dixon v. Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition,
2005 BCHRT 209, at paras. 16-17, para. 42.
Analysis
[120] While there are differences in the nature of the events postdating April 26, 2011relied upon in the Complaint and those preceding April 26, 2011, fundamentally, whether
we are talking about incidences involving micro-management of Ms. Moutals
attendance and time management issues, over-supervision, failure to promptly schedule
vacation, disciplinary or quasi-disciplinary conduct, re-locating Ms. Moutal in the District
Administrative Office, or refusal to accept medical information provided by Ms. Moutal,
all of these allegations share the common element that, if Ms. Moutals disability is a
factor in the behaviour which the School District is attempting to curb, they are
allegations of a failure to accommodate by the School District. In that sense, I considerthem to be a succession of separate acts of discrimination of the same character. In no
way do I consider such an interpretation to be unfair to the Respondents.
[121] In the circumstances, I find that the factual allegations of Ms. Moutal constituteallegations of a continuing contravention. Accordingly, I decline to dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to s. 27(1)(g).
[122] Of course, to find a continuing contravention it is necessary to consider whetherthe facts alleged are capable of supporting a reasonable inference that the treatment
complained of is related in whole or part to a prohibited ground of discrimination. I will
deal with that issue in the next portion of this decision dealing with s. 27(1)(b).
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
26/36
25
[123] Suffice it to say that for purposes of the timeliness issue, I am satisfied that thereis a continuing contravention and decline to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to s.
27(1)(g).
ANY CONTRAVENTION OF THECODE
? Section 27(1)(b)
[124] Essentially the School District submits that Ms. Moutals allegations should bedismissed as not revealing any contravention of the Codebecause there is no evidence
that she suffered from a mental disability during the relevant timeframe or, alternatively,
because she fails to show a link between any adverse employment consequences she may
have suffered and a mental disability.
[125] The common element in the submissions of the School District is that, accordingto them, at no point has Ms. Moutal suggested that the behaviour which was of concern to
the School District was caused by a mental disability.
Law
[126] A s. 27(1)(b) analysis must be embarked on by the Tribunal based upon the bareallegations set out in the Complaint which must be assumed to be true, Pegura v. School
District No. 36, 2003 BCHRT 53, para. 28.
Analysis No Evidence of Mental Disability
[127] The District relies heavily on the fact that Ms. Moutal did not speak up at anypoint and say specifically that she required accommodation with respect to her arrival
time at her workplace, the time she required for lunch, micro-management of those issues
by her direct supervisor, perceived enrollment of fellow workers to monitor her
attendance, and reassignment to the District Administration Office where she could be
under the direct supervision of the District.
[128] Further, the District points to the specific language used by Dr. Minhas in hisvarious reports which appears, in some cases, to fall short of stating that Ms. Moutal had
a current disability. They contrast that with the independent medical experts opinion that
Ms. Moutal does not have a current medical disability and submit that the Tribunal
should conclude that, on the information that was before them, they did not discriminate.
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
27/36
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
28/36
27
Her diagnosis met the criteria for acute stress disorder as well as post
traumatic stress disorder and possible depressive mood disorder. Eventhough Ms. Moutal was in full remission by the time our previous
communication had taken place (see my letter from April 27, 2011)
currently there is a severe regression in her condition and she is at high
risk for developing a full blown relapse of her symptomatology. Whileexperiencing full remission of her condition Ms. Moutal is able to perform
the required duties of her administrative job at the required level.
When Ms. Moutal is experiencing a full remission from her illness, her
condition does not prevent her from attending her job on time. At thesame, as she is receiving psychotropic medications that unfortunately
increase the degree of solemnest/tiredness/fatigue upon waking up in the
morning, these medications are a major factor in her difficulties in arrivingat her job at the required time.
When Ms. Moutal is in remission she has no difficulties with
communication about her break times as well as interacting with the
supervisor about scheduling issues.
At the same time, one has to appreciate that Ms. Moutal is vulnerable tostress and being subjected to micro-management of her work (that to my
understanding was always at the highest level of capability) increases her
anxiety and can lead to tendencies to try to minimize her exposure to thisenvironment by limiting the contact with that same supervisor.
The prognosis for Ms. Moutal to achieve a full remission is a very
positive one provided adaptations for her condition exists. It is important
to realize that Ms. Moutal is able to regain her normative, high functioninglevel following a crisis in 2007 and, with the help of psychotherapy and
medication intervention, had regained her full functioning. There is noreason to assume that, with the proper adaptations that this will not happen
again.
When Ms. Moutal is in full remission, her ability to work at the
Richmond School Board Administration Department is returned to normal.At the same time, her past condition was originated from stress-related
work within this primary place of employment (the District Office). Her
future exposure to the building and to the people in it severely increasesthe risk for a relapse. It would be nave to assume that, if she works in a
different office with a different supervisor, yet in the same the building,where all the stress was involved in the previous crisis for her happened,there would be no impact on Ms. Moutals mental state and on the risk for
reactivating her anxiety.
Currently, Ms. Moutal has unfortunately redeveloped severe signs of
relapse of her anxiety episodes. She experiences severe fatigue, dizzinessand symptoms of being lightheaded.At the same time, it is quite
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
29/36
28
possible that her symptoms are part of a relapse of her anxiety condition
relating to the recent stress over the last couple of months around heremployment. With the accommodation she needs and the support I am
confident she will get from her employer, Ms. Moutal is likely to regain
full remission and will be able to perform the full duties of her job.
In my opinion there are no measures that should be considered inmediating the return of Ms. Moutal to the District Office. Her current
employment at Sea Island School was an important part of her ability to
recuperate from the previous event of an acute anxiety disorder and the
return to the same location will significantly and negatively affect her wellbeing. I strongly recommend this measure will not be taken and all efforts
are made to enable Ms. Moutal to work in other locations (preferably
remaining at the Sea Island office).
[131] The School District interpreted Dr. Minhas letters as suggesting that Ms. Moutalwas at the material times in full remission and that the letters referred to a mere anxiety
state rather than diagnosable mental health disorders. It seems to me that an alternative
interpretation is not only possible but viable in view of the fact that Dr. Minhas clearly
states that Ms. Moutal takes psychotropic medications and that those cause interference
with her functioning in the morning which is directly related to her being late to work. He
further states on May 25, 2011 that Ms. Moutal as of that time is experiencing severe
regression in her condition and is at a high risk for developing a full blown relapse of her
symptomatology. His letter also seems to separate full remission of her condition, in
which he is clear that she would be able to perform her required duties, from her
condition in actuality at the time he was writing that letter. I am satisfied that there is
sufficient ambiguity in Dr. Minhas correspondence that could invoke a duty to inquire
further. I am further satisfied that the provision of Dr. Minhas letters to the District could
be viewed by the Tribunal as a request for accommodation.
[132] Although not material to an analysis under s. 27(1)(b), I include the opinions ofDr. Levin here so that they can be readily contrasted with the opinions of Dr. Minhas.
[133] The view of the School District seems to have been supported by the IME. Dr.Levin seems to take the same view of Dr. Minhas reports as did the School District. He
states:
although Ms. Moutal has a psychiatric diagnosis of major depressive
disorder, recurrent, with anxiety symptoms she currently does not present
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
30/36
29
with any active or clinically significant depressive symptomatology and
remains in full remission. As previously mentioned, her residual,situational anxiety is mild in severity and does not affect her occupational
performance or social life.
[134] He also says:Ms. Moutal does not present with any clinically significant
psychological/emotional disturbances or cognitive deficits which wouldaffect her ability to perform her current occupational duties as a clerical
assistant in the Continuing Education Department of the District.
and
As discussed above, Ms. Moutals major depressive disorder is currently in
remission. Therefore, her morning difficulties and being late to work
cannot and should not be explained or justified by her major depressive
disorder which is currently in remission.
He also states:
I would like to emphasize that 75 mg of Zoloft would not be expected to
cause Ms. Moutals reported morning psychological and physical
disturbances.
[135] All of this will be of significance in the consideration of a s. 27(1)(c) analysis but,as previously stated, only Ms. Moutals recounting of the facts can be considered on a s.
27(1)(b) application. I am satisfied that there is sufficient information in Dr. Minhasletters to alert the School District that there is a possibility, if not a probability, that Ms.
Moutals employment issues may be attributable, wholly or in part, to her medical
condition. If those letters are taken at face value, I am satisfied that there is sufficient
information that the Tribunal could conclude the School District had a duty to inquire
further with respect to the relationship between Ms. Moutals employment issues and her
disability. Accordingly, I decline to dismiss this Complaint pursuant to s. 27(1)(b) on the
basis that there is no evidence of mental disability.
[136] The School District has also argued that there was no evidence of a perceiveddisability. I accept that position given that the position of the School District throughout
was that it was provided with insufficient medical support for the fact that any of the
activities of Ms. Moutal were related to her mental disability. As a result, they proceeded
throughout on the basis that Ms. Moutal had no disability they were required to
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
31/36
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
32/36
31
reasonable prospect the complaint will succeed: Bell v.Dr. Sherk andothers, 2003 BCHRT 63.
The assessment is not whether there is a mere chance that the complaintwill succeed, which would be the lowest threshold a complainant would
have to meet. Nor is it that there is a certainty that the complaint will
succeed, which would be at the highest threshold a complainant wouldhave to meet. Rather, the Tribunal is assessing whether there is a
reasonable prospect the complaint will succeed based on all the
information available to it.
[142] The Tribunals role in assessing whether there is no reasonable prospect acomplaint will succeed has been described in the Court of Appeal in Workers
Compensation Appeals Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49, at para. 27:
It is useful to describe the nature of an application under s. 27 of the Code
to provide context for the appellants arguments. That provision creates agate-keeping function that permits the Tribunal to conduct preliminary
assessments of human rights complaints with a view to removing thosethat do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing. It is a discretionary
exercise that does not require factual findings. Instead, a Tribunal member
assesses the evidence presented by the parties with a view to determining
if there is no reasonable prospect the complaint will succeed. Thethreshold is low. The complainant must only show the evidence takes the
case out of the realm of conjecture. If the application is dismissed, the
complaint proceeds to a full hearing before the Tribunal. If it is granted,the complaint comes to an end, subject to the complainants right to seek
judicial review: Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human RightsTribunal), 2006 BCCA 95, 223 B.C.A.C. 71 at paras. 22-26, leave toappeal refd [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 171; Gichuru v. British Columbia
(Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2010 BCCA 191, 285
B.C.A.C. 276 at para. 31.
Analysis
[143] The School District submits that the Tribunal has dismissed complaints in severalcases under s. 27(1)(c) where the respondent provided a reasonable, non-discriminatory
explanation for the conduct in question. They also assert that the Tribunal has taken thatapproach where there were factual disputes between the parties.
[144] Both submissions made on behalf of the School District are correct. However,where the factual dispute is central to the issue before the Tribunal, it would be unusual
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
33/36
32
for the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) in the absence of a clear basis
for resolving the factual dispute.
[145] The School District has submitted that the allegations respecting Mr. Khoosattitudes towards Ms. Moutal and his micro-managing of her inability to attend work in atimely fashion, including Mr. Khoos use of information from co-workers regarding Ms.
Moutals absences and the requirement that she report her tardiness to him, do not
provide a basis upon which a finding of discrimination can succeed.
[146] They say that, on the material before the Tribunal, Mr. Khoo was unaware of Ms.Moutals medical condition and understood that she was in full remission and cleared to
return to work without accommodation at all material times. They submit that Ms. Moutal
never provided information that she was suffering from a mental disability which caused
her to be tardy.
[147] The School District submits that Mr. Khoo has provided a reasonable explanationfor his failure to immediately approve Ms. Moutals request for vacation.
[148] The School District also submits that its decision that Ms. Moutal had breachedher letter of expectation and the resulting decision to relocate her to the District Office, as
the basis of a complaint under s. 13 of the Code,has no reasonable prospect of success.
The basis for that submission is that the School District, at the time the decision wasmade to place Ms. Moutal at the District Office, had no indication she was suffering from
a mental disability. They also submit their conduct was not related to Ms. Moutals
medical history or alleged disability and therefore cannot be found to be discriminatory.
[149] Finally, the School submits that the medical evidence submitted by Ms. Moutalcould not substantiate her position that she could not be moved to the District Office and
that she required a medical leave of absence. They say that medical evidence was
internally inconsistent, did not indicate Ms. Moutal was suffering from a disability at thematerial time, and did not suggest that she had an illness which required accommodation.
[150] The School Districts position with respect to acceptance of Ms. Moutals medicalevidence is based on criticisms of the lack of precision in reports provided by her
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
34/36
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
35/36
34
accommodation is requested. Again, it is an issue that should only be decided after a full
evidentiary hearing.
[157] Respecting the use of the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties, I donot see the fact that it is introduced through hearsay as material. It is a respected referencesource and may contradict Dr. Levins opinion that Zoloft would not be expected to cause
Ms. Moutals morning fatigue issues. Given the importance of the effect of that drug in
the analysis of the discrimination in this case, a full evidentiary hearing in which all
medical personnel defend their views is required.
[158] For the reasons previously discussed in the s. 27(1)(b) analysis, I am of the viewthat the School Districts view of the conflict in the medical evidence is overly simplistic,
that the true medical state of Ms. Moutal at the material times is central to whether Ms.
Moutal can establish that she had a mental disability, and that that medical conclusion
will be central to whether Ms. Moutal can establish aprima faciecase. The appropriate
conclusions on the issue, in my view, can be reached by the Tribunal only after the
physicians who have provided their reports have been subjected to full cross-
examination. I reject the position that the District was entitled to disregard the medical
information provided by Ms. Moutal and rely solely on the independent medical
assessment. That is an issue that must be decided after a full evidentiary hearing. If Dr.
Levins opinion is accepted, they were correct in doing so. However, if Dr. Minhas
opinion is preferred, then that reliance might be to the Districts detriment.
[159] It is open to the Tribunal, depending upon the resolution of the disability issue, todetermine that the School District did not engage in an appropriate process of
accommodation with respect to Ms. Moutal and thereby contravened the Code.
[160] Accordingly, I am not prepared to dismiss Ms. Moutals Complaint pursuant to s.27(1)(c).
[161] For clarification, the Complaint against the Individual Respondents has beenwithdrawn, therefore, it is not necessary to consider that issue.
-
8/12/2019 Moutal v School District No 38 2013 BCHRT 132
36/36
VII CONCLUSION[162] The application by the School District is dismissed.
________________________________
Norman Trerise, Tribunal Member