Fired employee wins appellate case against Bell Canada

A former worker at BCE Inc. has emerged victorious in a long-running dispute over her termination from Bell Canada. The Federal Court of Appeal overturned previous rulings that went against her claim. Kathleen O’Grady was a manager at Bell who went on disability due to mental health concerns starting June 1, 2006. She was on leave for close to three years. Bell’s disability management group (DMG) formulated a back-to-work schedule for her while she was recuperating. In April 2009, Bell advised O’Grady that her position was being eliminated as part of a cutback of 2,500 employees. She took the case to the Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination. “At every stage, one of the appellant’s allegations has been that Bell treated her as though she were a healthy employee, capable of returning to active employment, when she was not,” the appellate court wrote. “The appellant alleges that in terminating her employment and denying her continued access to disability-related benefits and accommodation measures, when she remained disabled, Bell violated the CHRA .” O’Grady’s case went to the Commission, the Human Rights Tribunal and the Federal Court of Canada. All ruled against her. The Federal Court of Appeal has set aside the findings and upheld the appeal, awarding the fired worker costs. The Tribunal was ordered to reconsider the case, concentrating only on whether Bell has any defence to a prima facie case of discrimination. O’Grady has been pursuing the matter since 2010. She filed a complaint with the Commission in October of that year, which was denied in September 2011. In 2012, the Federal Court sent the case back to the Commission for reconsideration. It again denied the application. The Court ordered a third examination which resulted in her application being forwarded to the Tribunal in 2015. In 2018, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint. The facts submitted in the case show that O’Grady’s doctors worked with Bell to ensure a smooth transition back to work, starting in 2008. But Bell had simultaneously been preparing for the mass layoffs, including O’Grady’s job. On April 20, 2009, she was informed that her position was being eliminated. She had thought the meeting was scheduled to discuss her return to work. O’Grady maintains that her mental condition worsened following the termination and that she is unable to work to this day. On May 1, 2009, Bell informed her she was being cut off disability benefits. Bell argues that she was fit to return to work when the termination notice was delivered and that no case of discrimination exists. O’Grady disputes this. The Federal Court of Appeal sided with the employee on this issue, saying Bell’s contention is not supported by the facts. It also chided the lower court. “However, in my view, the Federal Court erred in its application of the reasonableness standard,” associate justice Mary Gleason wrote. “Contrary to what the Federal Court held, I would find the Tribunal Decision unreasonable due to its failure to grapple with the argument that the termination of the appellant’s long-term disability benefit coverage in the circumstances, in and of itself, was discriminatory.” Gleason opined that the Tribunal acted too narrowly in dismissing the O’Grady complaint. She found the appellant had made her case well. Associate justices Wyman Webb and Monica Biringer concurred in Gleason’s opinion. ppark@thewirereport.ca

Fired employee wins appellate case against Bell Canada

Court |
By Paul Park
|October 1, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Fired employee wins appellate case against Bell Canada

Court | By Paul Park |October 1, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Federal Court dismisses Terrestar’s appeal of CRTC spectrum revenue decision

Federal Court issues website block against stream ripping services

Appeals court asks Copyright Board to take another look at TV re-transmission case

Related Stories

Bell to quadruple AI data centre in Saskatchewan

Carney invites Bell to participate in cross-sector trade discussion

CRTC launches show cause proceeding against Bell device-locking policy

Bell still plagued by copper theft in first half of year

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Court |
By Paul Park
|October 1, 2026