Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Reassignment of a long-serving Border Services Officer due to medical ineligibility raised a question of disability discrimination.

• The Labour Board found no prima facie discrimination, concluding the applicant suffered no adverse impact.

• The Federal Court of Appeal ruled this conclusion unreasonable, emphasizing the non-monetary harm to dignity and professional identity.

• CBSA failed to conduct an individualized accommodation assessment, breaching legal accommodation standards.

• The Court held that lost opportunity and emotional harm can constitute adverse impact under human rights law.

• Damages for pain and suffering were reassessed, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and grievance

Andy Matos was a Border Services Officer (BSO) with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) for over three decades. His duties included front-line enforcement at the Primary Inspection Line (PIL), which required carrying defensive tools such as firearms. In 2014, following a medical evaluation, Matos was deemed unfit for firearms training due to a medical condition. CBSA policy required the removal of his defensive tools, and he was immediately reassigned to a non-enforcement, administrative post. Matos requested to be placed at a UPS/FedEx facility to remain useful, though he preferred to retain his PIL duties.

Matos filed a grievance under the collective agreement, alleging discrimination based on disability. He claimed the reassignment diminished his dignity and forced him into early retirement. The grievance was rejected at all internal levels and then referred to adjudication before the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB).

Labour Board decision

The FPSLREB found no prima facie case of discrimination. It reasoned that Matos suffered no adverse employment impact—he retained his pay, level, and was treated respectfully. Though it acknowledged his emotional distress and need for counselling, it deemed these insufficient to meet the legal threshold for discrimination. In the alternative, the Board stated it would have awarded $1,000 for pain and suffering had the grievance succeeded, recognizing CBSA’s failure to perform an individualized assessment prior to reassignment.

Judicial review and appeal ruling

The Federal Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable. The Court held that it misapplied the legal test for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, wrongly focusing on financial loss and disrespect as necessary indicators of adverse impact. It emphasized that adverse treatment can exist in the form of non-monetary harm—such as loss of professional identity, dignity, and job fulfillment.

The Court also found that the CBSA breached its duty to accommodate by not exploring other enforcement-compatible roles or assessing Matos’ functional limitations individually. The reassignment, although policy-driven, was found to be mechanical and insufficient under the law.

Outcome and remedy

The Court allowed Matos' application for judicial review. It did not send the case back to reassess liability, as the Board had already found that CBSA failed in its accommodation duty. However, it set aside the $1,000 nominal damages award and remitted the case to a different Board member to properly reassess compensation for pain and suffering. The parties were permitted to use the existing record or present additional evidence. The Court also awarded Matos $3,500 in costs, as previously agreed between the parties.