Lewis v. Regina School Division No. 4, 2003 CarswellSask 538, 2003 SKQB 344 (Sask. Q.B.)
Room 20, a portable at Judge Bryan school in Regina, was making Marilyn Lewis sick, according to her complaint to the Department of Labour.
Since she had started teaching in the portable in 1996, Lewis developed symptoms including fatigue, headaches, nosebleeds, sore throats, severe cough and chest pains. Doctors couldn’t say for sure whether these complaints were linked to the portable but they did suggest the board assign her to another room.
When the board didn’t do that, Lewis went on sick leave until she had used up all of her sick days and then went on an income continuance plan. In 1999 she accepted the board’s offer to relocate to Athabasca School, where she continues to teach.
Lewis wanted reinstatement of her 93 sick days as well as $3,014.69 to make up for the difference between her sick-leave income and her regular salary.
After Lewis complained about the portable, the school board conducted a single four-minute test for mould. Levels were found to be in the normal range. The Occupational Health & Safety Act states that employers must determine whether or not biological substances are present. According to a health officer that one test was not sufficient.
The officer ordered the board to reinstate Lewis with the money she asked for. The board appealed the decision.
The director of Occupational Health and Safety Division cancelled the decision of the officer. The director noted that the board had offered Lewis another classroom within a month of her going on sick leave, but that she said she felt too sick to return to any classroom.
Lewis then appealed the director’s decision to the adjudicator. The adjudicator said that although a more thorough inspection for substances would have been a good idea, there is no evidence any substance is responsible for the illness.
Lewis said the adjudicator erred and made one last appeal. She said the board should have thoroughly investigated the classroom for substances. She also said the board discriminated against her by requiring her to go on sick leave because she refused to work and because she was seeking enforcement of the act. But the Appellate Court said the school’s principal didn’t know that Lewis had refused to work and was unaware she was attempting to enforce the act. The principal had placed Lewis on sick leave because she was concerned about her health.
Room 20, a portable at Judge Bryan school in Regina, was making Marilyn Lewis sick, according to her complaint to the Department of Labour.
Since she had started teaching in the portable in 1996, Lewis developed symptoms including fatigue, headaches, nosebleeds, sore throats, severe cough and chest pains. Doctors couldn’t say for sure whether these complaints were linked to the portable but they did suggest the board assign her to another room.
When the board didn’t do that, Lewis went on sick leave until she had used up all of her sick days and then went on an income continuance plan. In 1999 she accepted the board’s offer to relocate to Athabasca School, where she continues to teach.
Lewis wanted reinstatement of her 93 sick days as well as $3,014.69 to make up for the difference between her sick-leave income and her regular salary.
After Lewis complained about the portable, the school board conducted a single four-minute test for mould. Levels were found to be in the normal range. The Occupational Health & Safety Act states that employers must determine whether or not biological substances are present. According to a health officer that one test was not sufficient.
The officer ordered the board to reinstate Lewis with the money she asked for. The board appealed the decision.
The director of Occupational Health and Safety Division cancelled the decision of the officer. The director noted that the board had offered Lewis another classroom within a month of her going on sick leave, but that she said she felt too sick to return to any classroom.
Lewis then appealed the director’s decision to the adjudicator. The adjudicator said that although a more thorough inspection for substances would have been a good idea, there is no evidence any substance is responsible for the illness.
Lewis said the adjudicator erred and made one last appeal. She said the board should have thoroughly investigated the classroom for substances. She also said the board discriminated against her by requiring her to go on sick leave because she refused to work and because she was seeking enforcement of the act. But the Appellate Court said the school’s principal didn’t know that Lewis had refused to work and was unaware she was attempting to enforce the act. The principal had placed Lewis on sick leave because she was concerned about her health.
