LAW 529-Marie has worked as a truck driver for more than

Marie has worked as a truck driver for more than 15 years with the Lake Superior TransportCompany in Kenora, Ontario. She is divorced with twins, Daniel and Denise, aged 16.As a consequence of an injury caused by a collision with another transport truck several yearsago, Marie experiences periodical pain and physical discomfort for which she was prescribedvarious drugs. Some of these drugs are narcotics, to which she became addicted. She disclosedthe addiction to her employer and, after a period of time in rehabilitation, Marie was able tocease her dependency on drugs. Marie considers herself to be cured of her drug addiction.Grace Cook is Director of Human Resources with the Sault Ste. Marie Transport Company. Gracepreviously worked in human resources for Lake Superior Transport Company and was acolleague and friend of Marie. She thinks highly of Marie’s work ethic and knowledge of thetrucking business. She is also aware of Marie’s previous drug problem, as she was instrumentalin arranging for Marie’s period of time in rehabilitation.The Sault Ste. Marie Transport Company is looking for an experienced truck driver who wouldalso supervise the work of its other drivers. This would involve scheduling deliveries, ensuringthat the goods are delivered on time and in good condition, and dealing with customercomplaints. Grace is responsible for finding that person and considers Marie to be an idealcandidate. Grace telephoned Marie to tell her that the job would be formally advertised soonand that she should apply. Grace emphasized that not only would it provide her with managerialexperience, but that she should expect it to lead to a promotion to a full-time supervisorposition, at which point Marie could stop driving entirely. In her words, it would allow her to“get off the road.”Marie was very hesitant to apply. It would mean not only leaving her current position at thetransport company where she had spent her entire working life, but also having to move toSault Ste. Marie and be separated from Daniel and Denise for several months. They would livewith their father while completing their last year of high school in Kenora. Marie was attractedby the opportunity for managerial experience, however, as well as the prospect of promotion toa full-time supervisory position and being able to stop driving a truck for a living.Marie applied for the position. She completed the standard employment application form andwas interviewed by the general manager of the Sault Ste. Marie Transport Company. Grace wasnot part of the hiring process, as she and the general manager agreed that due to her friendshipand past association with Marie, it would not be appropriate for her to do so.Marie was offered the job and accepted it. One aspect of the interview that surprised her at thetime and bothered her later was the general manager’s final question. He asked if Marie hadany history of problems with drugs or alcohol. He said that the question was important, as theconsumption of drugs and alcohol was a problem in the trucking industry. Nonetheless, thequestion caught Marie off-guard and she wondered if Grace had disclosed her previous drugproblem to the general manager. However, considering herself to no longer have a drugproblem, Marie said no. 1 Marie moved to Sault Ste. Marie and started her new job. From the beginning, she found thejob and life very difficult. She had trouble gaining the support and cooperation of the truckdrivers, and customer complaints about late deliveries and damaged goods were a source ofconstant irritation. The problems at work were compounded by being away from Daniel andDenise, and Marie experienced a recurrence of the pain and discomfort from her old injury.Finally, the expectation of promotion to a full-time supervisory position did not materialize.When Marie mentioned it to the general manager, he was completely surprised. He said thatthere was never any intention of her supervisory duties being full-time. She would always berequired to make deliveries as well as supervise the work of the other truck drivers.To relieve her recurring pain and dull the stress and unhappiness she was experiencing, Marieobtained a prescription for the same pain medication she had previously used. Unfortunately,her dependency on the medication also returned as she used it with increasing frequency andin higher doses. The resultant side effects included slurred speech and trouble walking. Thecasual observer might consider Marie to be drunk.This situation came to a head when the general manager received a complaint from animportant customer. Marie had taken the pain medication before visiting the customer to dealwith complaints about late deliveries. The customer complained that her speech was slurredand that she didn’t seem to comprehend what they were saying. The general manager said hewould look into the matter. He immediately spoke to Grace who, for the first time, disclosedMarie’s history of problems with drugs. The general manager met with Marie the next day. Herecounted the complaint from the customer, at which point Grace acknowledged her use ofpain medication and that it may have had the affect described by the customer. The generalmanager said that her conduct caused a major embarrassment with an important customer, andhe terminated her employment.Marie took legal action against the Sault Ste. Marie Transport Company claiming, among otherthings, discrimination contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, as well as failure by thecompany to promote her. The company responded by denying these allegations and claiming,among other things, that the termination of Marie’s employment was legally justified becauseshe had failed to disclose her drug problem when she was asked about any problems with drugsor alcohol at the employment interview. 2 Question 1a) Identify the prohibited ground of discrimination claimed by Marie. [1 mark] b) Briefly describe the legal arguments in favour of Marie’s claim of discrimination.[2 marks]c) Briefly describe the legal arguments against Marie’s claim of discrimination.[2 marks]Question 2a) Identify the legal nature or name of the claim by Marie that the Sault Ste. MarieTransportation Company wrongfully failed to promote her.[1mark]b) Briefly describe the legal arguments in favour of Marie’s claim that the Sault Ste. MarieTransportation Company wrongfully failed to promote her.[2marks]c) Briefly describe the legal arguments against Marie’s claim that the Sault Ste. MarieTransportation Company wrongfully failed to promote her. [2 marks]Question 3a) Identify the legal nature or name of the claim by the Sault Ste. Marie TransportationCompany concerning the failure by Marie, when asked, to divulge her problem with drugs.[1 mark]b) Briefly describe the legal arguments in favour of the Sault Ste. Marie TransportationCompany’s position that Marie’s failure to divulge her problem with drugs, when asked, wasjustifiable grounds for terminating her employment.[2 marks]c) Briefly describe the legal arguments against the Sault Ste. Marie Transportation Company’sposition that Marie’s failure to divulge her problem with drugs, when asked, was justifiable3 grounds for terminating her employment. [2 marks] 4