Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Gill v. Canada ( Public Service Commission )

T-2723-94

Reed J.

7/3/96

7 pp.

Application to set aside CHRC decision complaint would not be proceeded with because respondent taking steps to accommodate applicant-Applicant suffering from dyslexia-Applied for position as collections officer with Revenue Canada-Requested exemption from Entry Level Officers Selection Test (ELOST)-Submitting psychologist's report, prepared before applied for position, relating to applicant's learning disabilities-PSC offered accommodation: would be required to complete only three of five parts of test in double normal time given to complete those parts; short breaks would be given between different parts of test-In response to inquiries, PSC stating psychologist's report not advising applicant should not be taking ELOST-Psychologist writing additional opinion letters stating inappropriate to expect applicant to pass aptitude/academic test-Complaint stating PSC creating systemic barrier preventing applicant from applying for any government position as result of disability by insisting take ELOST; accommodation not reasonable-This application alleging Commission failing to exercise jurisdiction because not considering subject of applicant's complaint; breach of principle of fairness because Commission not having before it fair and adequate basis upon which to make decision-Application allowed-Commission not addressing real issue-No answer to complaint alleging accommodation not reasonable-Evaluation of reasonableness of accommodation required-One-page summary prepared by Commission's staff in support of recommendation complaint not be proceeded with further inaccurate when stated (1) applicant requested exemptions from complex portions of ELOST math tests; (2) applicant had asked as sole recommendation that respondent design special simulation test; (3) medical assessment stating respondent attempted reasonably to accommodate complainant-Analysis paper similarly slanted-Such mischaracterizations of material put forward by complainant also vitiating decision.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.