A firefighter dealing with post traumatic stress told his supervisors that his condition contributed to several difficult encounters with the public. The complaints were serious. Residents expected firefighters to communicate professionally, and the department was concerned about confidence in its service. Those concerns didn't relieve it of the responsibility to examine whether a known disability could be accommodated before ending the employment relationship.
Joseph Widdifield had served the North Cedar Fire Department for about eight years in a paid on call role. He disclosed that his PTSD had been triggered during some of the incidents. The department placed him on a three month leave and required counselling, but terminated him before that leave ended and before he attended the initial counselling session. In Widdifield v. North Cedar Improvement District, 2026 BCHRT 192, the tribunal considered whether his disability was a factor in the dismissal and whether the employer had taken reasonable accommodation steps.
The tribunal found a connection between the PTSD and conduct that led to the public complaints. Having been told about the condition and its possible role, the employer needed to make an individualized assessment. It hadn't collected adequate information about the firefighter's needs, considered possible adjustments or allowed the process it started to reach a meaningful stage. The tribunal found discrimination and ordered the department to cease similar conduct and pay $35,000 for injury to dignity.
Widdifield also sought compensation for wage losses and legal expenses, but the tribunal rejected those requests because the supporting evidence wasn't sufficient. That distinction is worth noting. A proven rights violation doesn't eliminate the need to establish the amount of financial loss claimed.
The case illustrates why an accommodation process involves more than sending someone home or referring them to counselling. Employers must work with the actual restrictions, operational demands and possible solutions. Sometimes accommodation won't be possible without undue hardship, particularly in safety sensitive work. An employer still needs to assess that possibility rather than assume it.
Source: BC Human Rights Tribunal, Widdifield v. North Cedar Improvement District, 2026 BCHRT 192, https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions/recent/2026-bchrt-192/