987 Counsel submitted that in reviewing the medical information provided to the respondent by
the complainant, the efforts of the respondent to accommodate her needs as defined by her
medical personnel were, at the very least, a reasonable attempt to accommodate her.
988 A summary of the timeline of events, according to counsel for the respondent, established
the reasonableness of the attempt to accommodate, and the following represents a summary of
what the respondent submits occurred in this case:
1. In April 2008, when the complainant filed her original complaint, the respondent offered
to move her to another sector, but this offer was declined (exhibit 7, tab 4).
2. In June 2008, when medical leave was first granted to the complainant, the expected date
of return was September 2008, and the request for accommodation was to find a suitable
work location either on the first or second floor of the building in which the complainant
worked (exhibit 6, tab 2, and exhibit 10, tab 1, page 9 of 9).
3. In September 2008, the respondent emailed the complainant and discussed various
workstations on the second floor (exhibit 6, tab 3). According to counsel for the
respondent, this is proof of an attempt to accommodate.
4. In October 2008, the respondent was told by the complainant she was not ready to return
to work, and she declined the second-floor office space referred to by the respondent in
September 2008. Exhibit 6 is a compilation of emails between the respondent and the
complainant that outline the search for a workstation in an attempt to accommodate the
request of the complainant.
5. In December 2008, the complainant expressed her thanks for the efforts of the respondent
(exhibit 6, tab 11) and took no issue with the work location. However, around this time,
she filed her grievance (exhibit 3, tab a-1), in which the corrective action requested
included the demand for the reimbursement of sick leave, a relocation to a safe workplace
(either the Department of Foreign Affairs or the United Nations) and payment at the EX-
01 salary level at least until March 2009.
6. It was only in January 2009 the complainant advised the respondent she was unable to
work at Place du Portage (exhibit 4, tab a-5). The correspondence from Dr. Goldstein of
May 11, 2009 (exhibit 4, tab a-7) was not provided to the respondent at the time, which is
telling, according to the respondent. Rather, the complainant provided the respondent
with a note from Dr. Goldstein dated May 22, 2009, which indicated reintegration within
three weeks at a location "far away from the Place du Portage Environment".
7. Counsel for the respondent noted in the response to this medical note, the supervisor for
the complainant asked for a meeting to discuss "a gradual and respectful reintegration to
the workplace". Rather than agreeing to a meeting, the complainant responded in writing
(exhibit 10, tab 37), asking for an accommodation and reintegration plan. This was even
though her supervisor, Mr. Johnson, had specifically suggested a meeting to discuss this
reintegration plan.
8. Within two weeks, the supervisor for the complainant worked in conjunction with a
human resources consultant (Mr. Trepanier) and prepared a reintegration plan for the
complainant. The testimony of Mr. Johnson was he was not prepared to provide this plan
to the complainant without discussing it first.
9. Exhibit 10, tab 42, is a compilation of emails to the complainant culminating in an email
from her dated July 30, 2009, the first point of which states, "this week, please do act
