NC-287 - Medical Discharge

The Appellant experienced difficulties in his Field Coaching Program after graduating from Depot where he also struggled. Eventually, the Appellant’s Field Coaching Program was paused and he was referred for a medical assessment. The result of the medical assessment process was two differing medical opinions. Central to the dispute was whether the Appellant’s struggles were due to a medical issue or whether it was due to English being his second language.

The two medical opinions were resolved in a final determination by the Force’s medical staff. The Force’s medical staff concluded that the Appellant had deficiencies which would not allow for the safe performance of operational policing duties.

The medical reports, along with an inability to find another position for the Appellant, led to the Decision to discharge the member. The Decision found that the Appellant possessed a disability and that the Force was unable to accommodate the member without experiencing undue hardship.

The Appellant appealed the Decision. The Appellant argued that the Respondent made a mistake in finding that the Appellant had a disability and failed to grapple with conflicting evidence on this point. The Appellant also argued that the Respondent failed to consider the possibility that the Appellant’s discharge was the result of discrimination based on English being his second language. 

The ERC found that the Respondent made a finding that the Appellant had a disability, which was clearly unreasonable because it failed to examine how the evidence met the threshold of a disability. Specifically, the Respondent did not identify how the concerns with the Appellant’s performance were related to a medical condition.

The ERC also found that the evidence did not support finding that the Respondent was clearly unreasonable in the assessment of discrimination. The Respondent analyzed the issue using the correct test, and the record did not demonstrate any connection between the Appellant’s language issues and a protected ground of discrimination.

The ERC recommends that the Decision be set aside and that the Appellant be reinstated as a probationary employee and be remunerated retroactively to the date of the Order to Discharge a Member.