Home|Conferences & Workshops|Human Rights and Accommodation Conference - Vancouver

Human Rights and Accommodation Conference

April 19 - 20, 2017
Hyatt Regency Vancouver

Register Now


Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Registration and Breakfast 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM  
Introductory remarks by Co-Chairs 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM  

Panel 1

Update on Undue Hardship: Where are adjudicators drawing the line?

9:00 AM - 10:15 AM

Sharon Cartmill-Lane
Employer Counsel
Sheen Arnold McNeil
Ana Lopez
Vice President, Human Resources & People Development
British Columbia Institute of Technology
Clea Parfitt
Legal Counsel
Clea F. Parfitt, Lawyer
David Tarasoff
Union Counsel
Hastings Labour Law Office

Panel Summary

In responding to human rights accommodation claims, the concept of undue hardship often remains a major point of contention between workplace parties. Undue hardship represents a legal "ceiling" on the duty to accommodate. Once the point of undue hardship has been reached, employers are not legally required to provide further accommodation. However, parties frequently disagree about what amounts to undue hardship. In this panel, Lancaster's experts will explore the limits of the duty to accommodate and provide insight on the following issues:

  • Reviewing the essential factors: When will an employer reach the point of undue hardship in accommodating an employee? What factors do adjudicators consider when determining whether the point of undue hardship has been reached? Financial cost? Safety? Employee morale? Disruption of a collective agreement? What evidence will an employer need to call to support a claim of undue hardship? When will an employer's failure to inquire into the existence of a disability requiring accommodation deprive it of this defence?
  • Undue hardship based on financial cost: What type of evidence will an employer need to call to establish that the financial cost of accommodation will amount to undue hardship? How cautious are courts and tribunals when assessing justifications based on the cost of accommodation?
  • Mental illness, substance use disorders, and safety: When will an employer reach the point of undue hardship in accommodating an employee with a mental health disability or substance use disorder that results in misconduct? Must employers tolerate relapses indefinitely when accommodating an employee with a substance use disorder? What role should a last chance agreement play in establishing undue hardship? What significance does the statutory requirement to provide a safe work environment have in the undue hardship analysis? Against what standard of safety is undue hardship judged? Is the standard "the highest level of safety" or is it reasonable safety?
  • Undue hardship and political belief: What type of evidence will an employer need to call to establish that discrimination on the basis of political belief is justified as a bona fide occupational requirement? In what circumstances could the accommodation of an employee's political beliefs constitute undue hardship?
  • Creative accommodations: What creative initiatives have parties adopted in the workplace in response to human rights accommodation requests? What are some recommended best practices for employers and unions when responding to accommodation claims?

BREAK (with refreshments)

10:15 AM - 10:45 AM

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Registration and Breakfast 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM  
Introductory remarks by Co-Chairs 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM  

Panel 2

Psychologically Safe Employment: Innovative approaches, promising new practices

10:45 AM - 12:00 PM

Kristin Bower
Consultant, Diversity and Inclusion, People Solutions
Vancouver City Savings Credit Union (Vancity)
Janice Cross
Psychological Health and Safety Advisor, Workplace Health
Provincial Health Services Authority
David Durning
Psychological Health and Safety Advisor
Health Sciences Association of British Columbia
Brandon Thistle
Occupational Health and Safety Officer
British Columbia Government & Service Employees' Union

Panel Summary

The National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace, launched in January 2013, provides a framework for promoting the mental health of employees and preventing psychological harm in the workplace. In order to identify promising practices for implementing the standard, as well as challenges and barriers to implementation, the Mental Health Commission of Canada conducted a three-year study of the first 41 organizations to implement the standard. In this panel, experts drawing on this study's findings as well as their own professional experience will discuss the results of implementing the standard and identify both promising practices and common barriers to implementation. Specific issues to be addressed include:

  • What is the history of the standard? What was the impetus for its development? What are the key elements of the standard? How has it been received by employers and unions?
  • Why might organizations decide to implement the standard? How does implementing the standard benefit employers, unions and employees? How should the benefits be measured? Does implementation result in demonstrable improvements to "the bottom line" or attendance? Can workplace parties accurately measure improvement in employee well-being?
  • Why have certain sectors, such as manufacturing, agriculture, construction, retail and natural resources, shown a reluctance to implement the standard? What if anything can be done to overcome this reluctance? Should the standard be made mandatory? Do jurisdictions outside Canada provide templates for the successful implementation of mandatory psychological health and safety standards?
  • How does the standard integrate with work that organizations are already undertaking to protect and promote the psychological health and safety and human rights of workers? For example, what role could the standard play in meeting the requirements of the Bill 14 amendments (regarding "mental disorder") to the Workers Compensation Act?
  • What have been identified as the key barriers to implementing the standard?
  • What are some promising practices in implementing the standard and overcoming common barriers? What role do currently existing structures (such as occupational health and safety committees) play in successful implementation? What readily-available external resources have proven helpful to organizations implementing the standard?


12:00 PM - 12:45 PM

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Registration and Breakfast 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM  
Introductory remarks by Co-Chairs 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM  

Keynote Address

Vancouver: A City of Reconciliation

12:45 PM - 1:15 PM

Ginger Gosnell-Myers
Manager, Aboriginal Relations
City of Vancouver


In 2008, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada was established to tell the truth about the injustices and deep pain experienced by Aboriginal peoples as a result of the Indian residential school system, and to educate non-Indigenous Canadians about its devastating legacy of unresolved trauma on generations of Indigenous Canadians. According to the Commission, its "focus on truth determination was intended to lay the foundation for the important question of reconciliation. Now that we know about residential schools and their legacy, what do we do about it?" Towards this goal of reconciling Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians, in 2015 the Commission released its final report in the form of 94 Calls to Action.

In the light of the work carried out by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the City of Vancouver made 2013-2014 an official Year of Reconciliation. In doing this, the City affirmed its support for the work of the Commission and endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A short time after the culmination of the Year of Reconciliation, Vancouver City Council passed a motion that would see it commit to a framework guiding Vancouver towards becoming a City of Reconciliation.

Since then, the City of Reconciliation framework has only been strengthened by the Commission's Calls to Action.

During this keynote presentation, the City of Vancouver's Manager of Aboriginal Relations, Ginger Gosnell-Myers, will discuss the steps taken by the City to further this work and how we can move toward Truth and Reconciliation. Ginger's talk will focus on the Calls to Action that relate to workplaces in Canada. What responsibility do employers, unions, and employees have for working towards reconciliation? What can workplace parties do to help create a new relationship with Indigenous Canadians based on mutual understanding and respect? Ginger will offer answers to these questions and provide practical suggestions for implementing those Calls to Action that impact the workplace based on her experience with the City of Vancouver.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Registration and Breakfast 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM  
Introductory remarks by Co-Chairs 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM  

Panel 3

Combating Racialization at Work

1:15 PM - 2:30 PM

Aleem Bharmal
Executive Director
Community Legal Assistance Society
Ginger Gosnell-Myers
Manager, Aboriginal Relations
City of Vancouver
Heather Hettiarachchi
Employer Counsel
Integritas Workplace Law
Natasha Tony
Assistant Steward
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 891

Panel Summary

The fact that racialized Canadians continue to experience disproportionately high levels of unemployment and earn less income than non-racialized Canadians are just two of the many indicators that racial discrimination is a reality in Canada today. In this session, a panel of experts will discuss the subtle ways in which racial discrimination occurs in workplaces, and explore proactive steps that organizations can take to combat individual and systemic discrimination. Questions to be addressed include:

  • Given that "race" is a social construct, what does it mean to say that human rights legislation prohibits discrimination/harassment on the basis of "race"? What does the term "racialization" signify?
  • What part does/should Canada's legacy of institutional racism (e.g. residential schools and racist immigration policies) play in current discussions about racial discrimination in employment?
  • How does racial discrimination/harassment manifest itself in workplaces? What are some of the subtle forms of exclusion and differential treatment racialized workers/job applicants experience?
  • How does racial profiling manifest itself in the employment context?
  • How does discrimination on the basis of "race" intersect with or relate to discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, ancestry, place of origin, creed, and/or religion? How does/can racial discrimination intersect with other prohibited grounds that have a less direct relationship with "race," such as gender, disability, age, and sexual orientation?
  • What are employers' obligations and the union's role when racial discrimination/harassment results from comments/actions by customers or clients?
  • What proactive steps should workplace parties take to ensure they are not engaging in, condoning, or allowing racial discrimination or harassment to occur? Should numerical data be collected? What policies/practices/decision-making processes should be reviewed for adverse impact on racialized individuals/groups? What measures should workplace parties take to ensure they are not engaging in racial profiling?
  • What types of training and educational programs (e.g. cultural competency, anti-bias, conflict resolution) should organizations implement to promote diversity, combat discrimination, and remove barriers to the full participation of members of racialized groups? Should organizations take a distinct approach to anti-racism measures for indigenous peoples?

BREAK (with refreshments)

2:30 PM - 2:45 PM

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Registration and Breakfast 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM  
Introductory remarks by Co-Chairs 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM  

Panel 4

Major Caselaw and Legislative Update: Genetic discrimination, ground-breaking damage awards, and more

2:45 PM - 4:00 PM

Donald Jordan
Employer Counsel
Harris & Company
Lindsay Lyster
Union Counsel
Moore Edgar Lyster

Panel Summary

Seasoned counsel will review the year's most important cases and legislative developments, and flag significant litigation and legislative reform on the horizon. Final selection of topics will take place a few weeks before the conference, ensuring coverage of late-breaking decisions.


4:00 PM


4:00 PM - 5:00 PM

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Breakfast 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM  

Keynote Address

Sexual Harassment, PTSD and the RCMP: Is change possible?

9:00 AM - 9:30 AM

Keynote Speaker

Dr. Greg Passey
Trauma Psychiatrist


Dr. Greg Passey is a trauma psychiatrist whose practice includes treating female RCMP officers with PTSD as a result of experiencing sexual harassment in their workplaces. In this special presentation, Dr. Passey will explain why survivors of sexual harassment can develop PTSD, and how an employer's response can impact the severity and duration of their symptoms. He will also discuss why certain people participate in abusive behaviour, and comment on the systemic changes he feels are necessary to fix the problem in the RCMP.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Breakfast 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM  

Panel 5

Combating Sexual Harassment: Engaging bystanders, training investigators, supporting survivors, and more

9:30 AM - 11:00 AM

Janine Benedet
Associate Dean, Academic Affairs and Professor and Co-Director, Centre for Feminist Legal Studies
University of British Columbia
Rear-Admiral Jennifer Bennett
Director General
Canadian Armed Forces Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct
Dr. Greg Passey
Trauma Psychiatrist

Janice Rubin
Employment Lawyer and Workplace Investigator
Rubin Thomlinson

Panel Summary

Recent high profile events, including the RCMP's historic apology and compensation to its female officers and members, appear to have raised societal consciousness about the pervasiveness of sexual harassment in employment. Has there been a change in the culture? What institutional barriers hinder the proper functioning of workplace harassment policies and the investigation of harassment complaints? This panel will address critical issues in investigating, responding to, and combating workplace sexual harassment, including:

  • For the purposes of this discussion, what do we mean by sexual harassment? Is sexual harassment more prevalent in certain sectors? Are certain workers more likely to be targeted? What role do myths and stereotypes play in sexual harassment? What is the impact of sexual harassment on an individual?
  • Why do people who experience sexual harassment in the workplace often not report? Why is it common for people to witness sexual harassment in the workplace but not say anything or report it? What are the challenges involved in investigating institutional behaviour? What are the challenges involved in implementing changes, for example in the university sector?
  • Why is an employer's response to a complaint of sexual harassment critical? What measures should organizations implement to combat workplace sexual harassment? How can organizations address the challenges we have identified earlier? How do we facilitate and encourage reporting sexual harassment in the workplace? Is there a difference between reporting and disclosure? What training should be provided to employees on intervening when they witness incidents of sexual harassment? What are best practices for investigating sexual harassment?

BREAK (with refreshments)

11:00 AM - 11:15 AM

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Breakfast 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM  

Panel 6

Fitness for Work: Ensuring a safe work environment in an era of marijuana, opioids, and other drugs

11:15 AM - 12:30 PM

Dr. Scott Macdonald
Assistant Director of Research, Centre for Addictions Research of BC; and Professor, School of Health Information Science, University of Victoria

Dr. Perry Sirota
Clinical and Forensic Psychologist

Andres Barker
Industrial Relations Specialist
Health Employers Association of British Columbia
Stephanie Drake
Union Counsel
Victory Square Law Office

Panel Summary

Last April, the federal government pledged to introduce legislation in spring 2017 which would legalize marijuana for recreational purposes. This development, in conjunction with the increasing prevalence of medical marijuana and other prescription drugs across Canada, makes it crucial for employers and unions to understand the implications of marijuana, opioids and other drugs in the workplace. Employers, unions and employees all share a common interest in maintaining a safe work environment while still respecting privacy and human rights. In this session, medical and legal experts will offer their thoughts on a range of issues relating to this topic, including disclosure requirements, impairment testing, accommodative measures and workplace policies.

  • Common misperceptions: What are some of the common misperceptions surrounding the use of medical marijuana and other prescription drugs at work? Does the medicinal use of marijuana and other drugs necessarily result in impairment? What else can contribute to employee impairment in the workplace? Fatigue? Chronic pain?
  • Disclosure: In what circumstances, if any, are employees required to disclose their use of medical marijuana and other prescription drugs? Can employees be required to disclose recreational use of marijuana or other drugs?
  • Impairment testing: What tests are available for employers to measure actual current impairment in the workplace? What advantages does competency-based testing have over traditional drug testing? What possible privacy and/or human rights concerns are raised by impairment testing in the workplace?
  • Balancing accommodation and safety obligations: Does a prescription for medical marijuana or other drugs entitle an employee to be impaired at work? Does the answer to this question depend on whether the workplace or particular position is safety-sensitive? What type of medical information should be requested to determine whether an employee can safely and effectively perform his or her job?
  • Confronting stigma: What negative stereotypes are often associated with the use of medical marijuana and other prescription drugs in the workplace? What best practices can employers and unions adopt to address such stigma?
  • Crafting workplace policies: What elements should be included in a workplace policy dealing with the use of prescription drugs? What about the use of recreational drugs? Should workplace policies require employees to report their use of prescription or recreational drugs during work hours? During off-duty hours? In what circumstances, if any, are zero-tolerance policies permissible?


12:30 PM - 1:30 PM

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Breakfast 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM  

Panel 7

Anxiety and Depression at Work: Making inquiries, crafting workable solutions, overcoming stigma

1:30 PM - 2:45 PM

Dr. Perry Sirota
Clinical and Forensic Psychologist

Michelle Blendell
Union Counsel
Black Gropper
Paul McLean
Employer Counsel
Mathews Dinsdale

Panel Summary

A recent report from the Conference Board of Canada calculated that lost productivity caused by workers' depression and anxiety costs the Canadian economy almost $50 billion a year. Another large study conducted by researchers at the London School of Economics found similar economic losses due to depression and anxiety in eight countries (including Canada) with diverse cultures. These numbers should be taken as an urgent call for employers to prioritize assistance and support for employees living with these conditions. In this panel, a mental health expert will provide an overview of depression and anxiety, explaining current thinking on why people develop these conditions, how they are diagnosed and what treatments are effective. Experienced labour lawyers, from both union and management, will join our mental health expert to provide guidance on effectively assisting employees in compliance with human rights and other legislation.

Making inquiries:

  • Do employers and/or unions have a legal duty to inquire into an employee's need for accommodation when an employee exhibits common signs of depression or anxiety? Are such inquiries themselves likely to expose employers to a claim of discrimination (for implying that the employee has a disability)? If so, is there a way employers or unions can broach the subject of a potential disability that is less likely to lead to a claim of discrimination?

Crafting workable solutions:

  • What unique privacy concerns are raised by the provision of medical information related to depression or anxiety? How should workplace parties address those concerns?
  • Are employers justified in being skeptical of medical information and limitations related to depression and anxiety on the basis that such information is based largely on self-reporting? Or is such skepticism rooted in the stigma and stereotypical assumptions associated with mental illness?
  • What is the extent of an employee's obligation to cooperate in accommodation? Do depression and anxiety affect an employee's ability to participate in the accommodation process?
  • What are the common bases on which employers and/or unions claim undue hardship in accommodating employees with depression or anxiety? In what circumstances have such claims been successful recently?

Overcoming stigma:

  • Do employers and/or unions have a legal responsibility to counteract stereotypical views held by employees/members? How should employers and unions react when co-workers complain about accommodations an employee is receiving because of anxiety or depression?

BREAK (with refreshments)

2:45 PM - 3:00 PM

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Breakfast 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM  

Panel 8

Changing Families, Changing Rules: The latest cases and best practices on adjusting work schedules and other accommodations

3:00 PM - 4:15 PM

Krista James
National Director, Canadian Centre for Elder Law and Staff Lawyer
British Columbia Law Institute
Jodie Gauthier
Union Counsel
Koskie Glavin Gordon
Michael Wagner
Employer Counsel
Roper Greyell

Panel Summary

For many Canadian workers, protection against family status discrimination is crucial in balancing work and family care obligations. Despite the importance of this issue for employers, unions and employees, there remains significant uncertainty and conflicting jurisprudence regarding the nature and extent of employers' duty to accommodate family care obligations. Shifting demographic trends and the increasing prevalence of "non-traditional" family models in Canada raise additional questions about the scope of family status accommodation requirements. Join a panel of Lancaster's experts for an in-depth discussion on this rapidly evolving area of law.

  • Current state of the law on family status discrimination: What legal framework is applied in British Columbia and other jurisdictions regarding family status discrimination? Can the restrictive approach of the B.C. Court of Appeal in Campbell River be reconciled with the broader approaches adopted by tribunals and courts in other Canadian jurisdictions? What legal framework is applied to non-childcare cases, such as care of elderly parents or spouses?
  • Family status protection and non-traditional families: What is "family" for the purposes of family status discrimination? Does family status discrimination apply to "non-traditional" families, such as blended families, gay and lesbian families, grandparent-headed families or groups such as migrant workers?
  • Exploring accommodation: What sorts of accommodations may be suitable in cases of family-related needs and obligations? Can employers ask about the employees' family obligations or is this an infringement of privacy? What process should be followed by employers and unions when an employee requests accommodation based on family status? How should employers and unions address family accommodation issues which conflict with seniority, scheduling, benefits or other provisions of the collective agreement?
  • Understanding the role of the employee and undue hardship: Do employees have an obligation to "self-accommodate" prior to requesting family status accommodations at work? What types of "reasonable alternative solutions" is an employee expected to pursue before seeking accommodation from his or her employer? When will an employer reach the point of undue hardship in accommodating an employee's family status needs?
  • Crafting workplace policies: What are some best practices for addressing family status protections in workplace policies? Should family status accommodation be addressed on a case-by-case basis under general accommodation policies or should workplace parties draft a specific policy on this issue?


4:15 PM

Keynote Speakers

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

The Essentials of Accommodation: A roadmap for employers, unions, and employees

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM

Thérèse Boullard
Human Rights Consultant
Boullard Counsulting Services
Lou Poskitt
Employer Counsel
Miller Titerle
Gurleen S. Sahota
Legal Counsel
Health Sciences Association of British Columbia

Workshop Summary

Employers, unions and employees all have unique roles to play in the assessment and implementation of workplace accommodations. While accommodation cases commonly deal with disability in the workplace, recent jurisprudence has involved other protected grounds of discrimination such as religion, gender identity, race and family status. With new and complex issues in accommodation continually emerging, all parties benefit from mindful reflection on the nature and scope of their responsibilities within the accommodation process. This workshop will take participants through the basic steps involved at each stage of the process, including identifying the need for accommodation, gathering the necessary information, investigating possible options for accommodation and fulfilling the duty to accommodate. Lancaster's seasoned counsel will provide practical advice on the following issues:

  • Understanding the duty to inquire: What information does the employer need to have before the duty to accommodate is triggered? What is the employer's duty to inquire into an employee's need for accommodation? Does a union bear any duty to make inquiries? What is the legal effect of an employee not disclosing a need for accommodation until discipline has been threatened or imposed?
  • The allowable scope of medical inquiries: What is the scope of the medical information to which an employer is legally entitled for the purposes of accommodating an employee? How should employers and unions balance the need for medical information against privacy rights of employees during the accommodation process?
  • Meeting accommodation needs: What are the steps that should be taken by employers to investigate the availability of accommodation options? What is the union's role in the accommodation process and how should it participate? What right/obligation does an employee have to participate in the accommodation process? What are some examples of helpful accommodations for employees who are suffering adverse treatment on the basis of disability, religion, sex, race, ethnicity, family status or age?
  • BFORs and undue hardship: What is a "bona fide occupational requirement" (BFOR)? How can workplace parties determine what elements of a job are bona fide occupational requirements? At what point will an employer be able to establish that it has accommodated an employee to the point of undue hardship? What role does the statutory requirement to provide a safe work environment play in the undue hardship analysis? What sort of rehabilitation efforts are sufficient in order for an employee to return to the workplace?
  • Last chance agreements: What role should a last chance agreement play in establishing undue hardship? How can last chance agreements or automatic termination provisions be structured in order to comply with human rights obligations?
  • Complex accommodation issues: Does a worker who practices a minority or "non-mainstream" religion have the same entitlements to religious accommodation in the workplace? What are an employer's duties with respect to accommodation of an employee with a degenerative disease? Are the rights of people with weight or obesity issues protected under human rights codes? If an employee is adversely treated on the basis of a perceived disability or illness, which the individual does not, in fact, possess, is this discrimination?

Friday, April 21, 2017

Discipline versus Accommodation: Responding to disability-related misconduct

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM

Jessica Gregory

Jonathan Chapnick
Senior Advisor, Workplace Mental Health
University of British Columbia
Cheryl Colborne
Equality Representative, British Columbia
Canadian Union of Public Employees
Julie Menten
Employer Counsel
Roper Greyell
Steven Rogers
Union Counsel
Victory Square Law Office

Workshop Summary

Dealing with disability-related misconduct is one of the more difficult tasks faced by employer and union representatives. Should the employee who tests positive for drugs after a workplace accident be accommodated or disciplined? Is there an option in between? What about the employee who steals to support a drug addiction? Should he or she be accommodated on the basis that the theft resulted from the addiction? This interactive workshop will explore the legal issues raised by such situations and provide guidance to employer and union representatives who have to deal with disability-related misconduct. Topics to be addressed include:

Current arbitral approaches:

  • Do arbitrators still actively employ the "hybrid approach" when assessing cases of disability-related misconduct? What is the difference between culpable and non-culpable conduct under the hybrid approach?
  • What evidence is required to establish a nexus between the disability and the misconduct?
  • Can arbitrators rely on medical evidence of an employee's disability that comes to light only after disciplinary action has been taken?

Understanding the duty to inquire:

  • Is an employer required to investigate whether disability played a role in an employee's misconduct prior to imposing discipline? Are there typical behaviours or warning signs that may alert an employer to the possibility that misconduct is disability-related?
  • How should employers and unions respond when an employee denies that she or he has a mental health issue or substance dependency despite conduct that suggests the employee has a disability?
  • In what circumstances can an employee with a suspected or known mental health disability be removed from the workplace, until he or she provides medical information to prove he or she is fit for duty and/or does not pose a health and safety risk?

Meeting accommodation needs, assessing undue hardship:

  • What accommodative measures are appropriate in cases of misconduct caused by a disability?
  • What medical evidence can an employer require in order to structure its response?
  • What must unions do to meet their duty of fair representation when the disability-related misconduct of one member adversely affects other members?
  • At what point will an employer be able to establish that it has accommodated an employee to the point of undue hardship? What role do the health and safety of co-workers, clients/customers, patients and the general public play in assessing undue hardship?
  • Are employers required to take the possibility of relapse into account when accommodating an employee with substance dependency? If so, at what point do repeated relapses constitute undue hardship?
  • What sort of conditions can be imposed on employees to prevent recurrences of disability-related misconduct (e.g. drug or alcohol testing, continued treatment)?
  • When, if ever, will last chance agreements be appropriate? Are different approaches warranted in different industries?


Click here to find out more information regarding CPD and the hour requirements in your province.

Conference Sessions

  • Members of the Law Society of Saskatchewan should contact their Law Society regarding CPD Approval.
  • This program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 11 Continuing Professional Development hours.
  • CPD for Members of the Law Society of Upper Canada: 11 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours.
  • This program has been approved by the BC Human Resources Management Association (HRMA) for 11 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) hours.


  • Members of the Law Society of Saskatchewan should contact their Law Society regarding CPD Approval.
  • This program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
  • CPD for Members of the Law Society of Upper Canada: 5.5 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours.
  • This program has been approved by the BC Human Resources Management Association (HRMA) for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) hours.