The Hamilton public school board has lost an appeal in a costly, drawn-out human rights case.

"This decision is heavily in favour of enforcing human rights in Ontario and giving them some teeth," said Sharon Fair's lawyer, Ed Canning.

Fair's case was first brought before the then Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2004. In 2013, nine years after the original complaint, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the board had failed to accommodate Fair's disability, and she was to be awarded $419,284 in lost wages plus interest, $30,000 for loss of dignity, and a job at the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board.

The HWDSB employee was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression in 2001 after developing a fear of making a mistake and causing injury in her supervisory position in asbestos removal. Fair had spent seven years in that position.

From 2002 to 2004 she received long-term disability and had expressed a desire to return to work in another job by April 2003.

After the board failed to find a suitable job for her, she was fired in July 2004. Two months earlier a psychiatrist had indicated that Fair's only restrictions were to jobs that entailed "responsibility for health and safety issues" and "duties which would leave her at risk for personal liability."

In 2013, the tribunal found that the board could have accommodated Fair in two vacant positions.

In September 2014 the Divisional Court dismissed the board's application for judicial review.

In November, HWDSB argued that the divisional court had wrongly dismissed its application for the judicial review.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled Monday that it sees "no error in the decision of the Divisional Court."

It goes on to call the tribunal's decision reasonable, and leaving the court with no basis to interfere.

The board has until June 24 to respond.

"We are definitely open to learning from this decision," said HWDSB chair Todd White. "In terms of next steps we will have to present all the information to the board of trustees."

White said the length and cost of the process has been disappointing. The Spectator last reported $339,000 in legal fees for the board as of November 2015.

White points out that none of the board members present at the time of Fair's filing are on the current board, and that the crux of the consideration for appeal was based on the actions the board needed to take.

"A good portion of this is precedent setting beyond our board," said White.

Canning says neither party is to blame for the length of time this case has taken, blaming a change in process for the delays.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

As for the precedence, Canning believes the case was based off existing human rights principles.

"The Human Rights Tribunal has had the jurisdiction to order reinstatement for decades, but very few complainants seek it," he said, adding that his client is thrilled and looking forward to returning to the board.