A New Brunswick driving instructor was awarded $22,440.17 after a human rights board found his employer discriminated by treating frustrated remarks as a resignation when his disability was affecting his work.
The result was mixed in Theriault v. Versatile Training Solutions Ltd., 2026 CanLII 25283 (NB LEB), decided January 8, 2026. The Labour and Employment Board rejected the separate claim that the company unlawfully refused renewed accommodation, because the employee had not supplied updated medical evidence. But that did not justify ending his employment.
Versatile and its general manager, Jolene Otis, were held jointly and severally responsible for $5,000 in general damages and $17,440.17 in lost-income and benefit compensation. The complaint against Robert Otis, who was not involved in day-to-day operations, was dismissed.
A return to work followed by renewed difficulties
Evan Theriault began working for Versatile in July 2021, teaching adults to drive commercial vehicles near Sussex and performing some truck maintenance. He suffered a concussion in a workplace accident in April 2024.
The company participated in a gradual return-to-work program supported by WorkSafeNB. Theriault initially performed modified maintenance duties before resuming driving instruction. WorkSafeNB advised the company that he could return to full-time duties and that his benefits ended in late August.
When symptoms returned in September, Theriault asked to spend Wednesdays off the trucks, either doing maintenance or taking the day off. Jolene Otis declined, citing the small business’s costs and difficulty finding another instructor.
Theriault left work that morning and sent Robert Otis a message suggesting he was leaving for good. On the following Monday, he reported that symptoms prevented him from attending work. After receiving a record of employment stating that he had quit, he promptly disputed that description.
Two different discrimination questions
The board considered whether disability was a factor in an adverse employment impact, then whether the employer had justified its conduct. It treated the accommodation request and the termination as separate issues.
On accommodation, the board accepted that Versatile had cooperated with the return-to-work process. It found that employees also have responsibilities in that process, including providing objective information supporting the disability-related adjustments they seek.
Theriault did not have a new medical report supporting his September 13 request. A later medical assessment occurred after his employment had ended. Given the information available from WorkSafeNB, the board found no violation in refusing the renewed accommodation request.
That conclusion did not rest on accepting the employer’s undue-hardship argument. The board rejected that defence, noting that Versatile had already provided the same modifications during the earlier gradual return.
Frustrated words were not a settled resignation
The company maintained that Theriault had quit. The board disagreed: he had no real intention of resigning and had acted out of frustration. He clarified his position within a short time.
A reasonable employer should have made further inquiries before finalizing its decision, the board found. Instead, the company seized on the situation to terminate him, at least partly because he remained unable to perform full-time driving-instructor duties.
A protected characteristic need not be the only reason for dismissal to make it discriminatory. Here, the decision to characterize his conduct as quitting could not reasonably be separated from the employer’s view of his ability or willingness to do the job. WorkSafeNB’s earlier assessment did not justify severing the relationship.
Compensation, not reinstatement
The board considered termination a serious violation warranting $5,000 for injury to dignity and self-respect, although it did not find a pattern of humiliation or intolerance.
Its special-damages calculation allowed 17½ weeks of lost income and employer pension contributions, then deducted wages already paid under an employment-standards order. It did not deduct Employment Insurance or social-assistance benefits from the employment-income loss.
Theriault did not seek reinstatement, and none was ordered. The board also declined the commission’s request for employee training. The award addressed the discriminatory termination, not a finding that every requested workplace adjustment had to be granted.
