The board found that the CRA\u2019s revised policy increased \u201cthe pressure on an employee with a disability\u201d because it didn\u2019t consider the worker\u2019s individual circumstances or give him more time to obtain an up-to-date medical note \u2013 the CRA gave the worker until the end of his term contract, said the board, noting that the only medical information it had at that point was the short doctor\u2019s note from Jan. 8. In addition, after the worker\u2019s contract wasn\u2019t extended, an OFAF indicated that he could return on a gradual basis and work up to full-time employment, the board said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The revised policy also tried \u201cto predetermine the point of undue hardship for granting any future extensions,\u201d said the board.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Foreseeable future\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n As the CRA\u2019s operations were dependent upon hiring term employees continuously, the non-discriminatory foreseeable future time frame didn\u2019t end at the completion of the worker\u2019s current term \u2013 it was \u201cthe length of time in which there will be an operational need for the employer to extend term employees generally who are working in the same position,\u201d said the board, noting that other term employees were extended past May 2022.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe CRA took a pretty hard approach just because there wasn’t clarity around whether the worker would be able to return by the end of the contract renewal date – they stuck to that timeline to make that decision,\u201d says Gakhar. \u201cWhen it comes to the duty to accommodate, employers should be far more considerate and careful, to say the least.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n