Kearlsey Case Study

Summarize the facts of this case.

Tony Carlyle applies for a position as a firefighter with the City of SST. Catharine and Nas accepted on condition that he were to pass a medical examination by a doctor specified by the city. However, during the medical exam the doctor discovered that Carlyle had an trial fibrillation (an irregular heartbeat) and refused to pass him.

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Carlyle took it upon himself to consult a medical specialist who advised him that his indention would indeed not affect his ability to perform his Job as a firefighter. Carlyle then filed a complaint against the city with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

At the Commissions Bored of Inquiry hearing, the doctor who had originally examined Carlyle testified that trial fibrillation led to increased risk for stroke meaning his heart could fail to pump sufficient blood to his organs during the extreme conditions that come with firefighting. The Board of Inquiry called a medical expert in trial fibrillation.

The expert testified that the increased risk for stroke in money of Careless age was inconsequential. The expert further testified that there was no increased risk for heart failure in someone like Carlyle because he Nas otherwise in good health. Meanwhile, after Carlyle got turned down by the SST. Catharine fire department, Carlyle had become a firefighter in the City of Hamilton, achieving the rank of first-class firefighter in October 2001.

. Why did the Board of Inquiry rule in Careless favor? The Board of Inquiry ruled in Careless favor because they came to the conclusion that Mr..

Tony Carlyle had in fact suffered discrimination. The Board noted that it would have been the City of SST.

Catharine responsibility to seek an expert opinion when confronted with a medical condition such as that found in Carlyle. The Board also indicated that this was the procedure used in other municipalities. The City did not follow their responsibilities which led to Mr.. Careless unfair treatment and discrimination based on disability.

For these reasons, this is why I think the Board of Inquiry most definitely ruled in Careless favor. Do you agree with the decision in this case?

Why or why not? I strongly agree with the decision of the case. Tony Carlyle was without a doubt, discriminated based on disability which is illegal in Canada. I feel like the city of SST. Catharine defiantly should have handled this matter in a more ordered and professional way, as it seems that none of the facts in favor of the city of SST. Catharine truly added up.

I feel like the city Jumped to conclusions too quickly not taking into account that Tony Carlyle was still fully capable to fulfill all duties of a Retirement. They did not treat Mr..

Carlyle as an equal tater finding out en and a usability; this is an act of discrimination and this is illegal. The city of SST. Catharine owes at the least these things to Mr.

. Tony Carlyle in return for their lack of knowledge towards him while doing their Job. 4. In what ways in this case a question of human rights? This case is a question of human rights because it is strongly discriminating against disability in the workplace. The Ontario Human Rights Code provides in part: 5(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of handicap.

0(1) “because of handicap” means for the season that person has or had, or is believed to have or have had a) any degree of physical disability that is caused by illness. 17(1)a right off person under this Act is not infringed for the reason only that the person is incapable of performing of fulfilling essential duties or requirements attending the exercise of the right because of handicap. It is obvious at once that a person with very bad eyesight is not discriminated against when refused a Job as a truck driver nor a person with inadequate strength when refused a Job as a police officer or firefighter.

There is no bout that SST. Catharine considered that Mr.

. Carlyle had a physical disability, trial fibrillation. The issue is whether SST. Catharine was Justified in concluding that because of this perceived disability; Mr..

Carlyle was incapable of performing or fulfilling essential duties as a firefighter. It was later found out that Mr.. Carlyle could indeed perform all duties as a firefighter, as he got hired by the City of Hamilton later that year. Therefore, Mr.

. Carlyle was discriminated against based on disability and this is without a doubt, a question of human rights.