The Northern Health Region has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case of a worker fired for alleged alcohol use, and it’s a good thing, because there have been significant questions raised throughout the case that could affect Manitobans.
Linda Horrocks was a health care aide fired by the NHR in 2011 after a manager deemed she had come to work after consuming alcohol. Horrocks’ union argued her case at the time, and in order to be reinstated, Horrocks was required to sign an agreement stating she would abstain from alcohol at all times, including off-duty hours.
In 2012, before Horrocks could return to work, she was terminated a second time on an allegation that Horrocks was seen in a grocery store with the appearance of being under the influence, as well as a suspicion that she had been drinking when reached by phone by a fellow employee.
Horrocks denied those allegations, taking her discrimination complaint to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.
Since 2012, the case has been heard by a human rights adjudicator, a judge at the Court of Queen’s Bench and in the Manitoba Court of Appeal, with decisions bouncing back and forth in favour of Horrocks or the NHR.
The situation is a sticky one to begin with. The biggest question though, is who has jurisdiction here? What, exactly, qualifies as human rights in this case, and can those rights be overridden by an agreement with an employer?
The inability of the bodies that have reviewed the case to land on a unanimous decision as to whether Horrocks was discriminated against alludes to confusion about the purpose of the Human Rights Code. Something that spells out the basic rights of every resident of Manitoba should be more easily understood and applied.
If the case is heard, the outcome will be precedent-setting. Regardless of the outcome, it will give Manitobans a better idea of what their human rights are, and when and how they are applied.
