Date: 20030520
Docket: T-287-01
Citation: 2003 FCT 631
Ottawa, Ontario, this 20th day of May, 2003
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Sandra J. Simpson
BETWEEN:
VELVET A. PEAVOY
Applicant
and
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS AND ORDER
UPON Velvet A. Peavoy's (the "Applicant") application for judicial review of a decision dated January 15, 2001 (the "Decision") in which the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") dismissed her complaint dated May 17, 1999 (the "Complaint") against the Royal Bank of Canada (the "Bank") because, pursuant to subsection 44(3)(b)(i) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (the "Act") it concluded that an inquiry was not warranted since the evidence did not support her claim that she received discriminatory treatment because she suffered from depression;
AND UPON reviewing the file and hearing the submissions of counsel for both parties in Toronto on Tuesday, April 29, 2002;
AND UPON determining that the Decision was based on a ten-page report dated November 16, 2000 (the "Report") prepared by investigator, Deborah Hanscom, which concluded at paragraph 56 that, although the medical evidence which the Applicant provided to the Bank was sufficient to support her claim for Short Term Disability Benefits ("STD Benefits"), she had received an equivalent benefit because she was maintained on full salary from her last day of work on December 15, 1997 until November 9, 1998 when her physician agreed that she was fit to begin a gradual return to work at her former job in Mississauga Ontario pursuant to a Return to Work Agreement which she signed and which was approved by her doctor, Dr. Dickson;
AND UPON considering the Applicant's allegations that:
(i) The Commission erred when it based its decision on the Report because she did not receive payments which were equivalent to STD Benefits, and;
(ii) The Commission erred when it relied on the Report because it did not adequately deal with the issue of the Bank's obligation to accommodate the Applicant's disability;
AND UPON concluding that, although the Applicant alleged that she should have been allowed to apply for STD Benefits which would have paid her full salary from December 15, 1997 to June 15, 1998, the Bank actually paid her full salary during that period (albeit with two stoppages corrected by retroactive payments);
AND UPON concluding that, although the Applicant alleged that with STD Benefits she would have been entitled to apply for LTD Benefits which, if granted, would have paid her seventy percent of her salary for a maximum of one year from June 15, 1998, the Bank actually paid her one hundred percent of her salary from June 15, 1998 until November 9, 1998 when her doctor certified that she was well enough to return to work on a part-time basis;
AND UPON concluding that the Report dealt adequately with the issue of accommodation in that it:
· described the Bank's decision to have the Applicant's mental health assessed by Med Works Assessments in January 1999;
· described the Return to Work Agreement which the Bank and the Applicant signed which called for a gradual return to work with the goal of returning to her original job in Mississauga, Ontario;
NOW THEREFORE THIS COURT ORDERSthat, for the reasons given above, this application for judicial review is hereby dismissed.
"Sandra J. Simpson"
JUDGE
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: T-287-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: VELVET A. PEAVOY v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA ET AL
DATE OF HEARING: April 29, 2003
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario.
APPEARANCES BY: Ms. Sharon L.C. White
For the Applicant
Mr. Douglas Gray
Mr. Daniel Fogel
...................................
...................................
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ms. Sharon L.C. White
Inch, Easterbrook & Shaker
Barristers and Solicitors
1500- One King Street West
Hamilton, Ontario.
L8P 4X8
For the Applicant
Mr. Douglas Gray/Mr. Daniel Fogel
Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
30th Floor
Toronto-Dominion Tower
Box 371, T-D Centre
Toronto, Ontario.
M5K 1K8.
For the Respondent