Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review focused on the reasonableness of a Regional Director's decision under the Canada Labour Code.

• Applicant claimed workplace danger due to failure to accommodate disabilities during remote and in-office work.

• Refusal to work was grounded in safety concerns linked to accessibility issues and alleged workplace retaliation.

• The Regional Director declined to investigate, citing the Canadian Human Rights Act as a more appropriate avenue.

• Court emphasized the discretionary power of the Director under the Code and deferred to administrative expertise.

• Application was dismissed; the refusal process under the Code was deemed improperly invoked in this context.

Facts and outcome of the case

Carmelle Goldberg, a Senior Policy Advisor at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), began employment in October 2022. As a person with physical disabilities affecting vision, hearing, balance, and spatial orientation, she requested workplace accommodations, which were mostly, but not entirely, implemented by her employer. In November 2022, Goldberg experienced temporary blindness while testing accessibility software with IT support. The next day, she refused to work, citing danger arising from her disabilities and ISED’s failure to fully accommodate her.

She filed a formal Statement of Refusal under the Canada Labour Code, asserting four grounds: lack of a customized computer setup, insufficient training on adaptive technologies, unsafe software testing procedures, and exposure to workplace violence for requesting accommodations. ISED conducted an internal investigation and found no danger under the statutory definition. The matter progressed to the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Committee, and then to the Labour Program at Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), as required under the Code.

A Health and Safety Officer concluded that the issues raised were primarily accommodation-based and more appropriate for resolution under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). The Regional Director agreed and exercised discretionary authority under paragraph 129(1)(a) of the Code to decline a formal investigation. Goldberg sought judicial review of this decision at the Federal Court.

The Court, presided over by Justice Zinn, applied the standard of reasonableness outlined in Vavilov and concluded that the decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible. It emphasized that the refusal-to-work mechanism is an emergency remedy, not designed for ongoing accommodation disputes. The Court supported the Regional Director’s interpretation that the CHRA offered a more appropriate resolution pathway for disability accommodation concerns.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed Goldberg’s application, finding no basis to interfere with the administrative discretion exercised by the Regional Director. No costs were awarded, as both parties agreed to waive them.