How has the respondent defended its position that it did not discriminate against the complainant in a medical malpractice case?

The respondent submits that it did not discriminate against the complainant because it did not presume what she could or could not do and did not assume that she had functional limitations that prevented her from doing any of the tasks associated with her position. Instead, the respondent submits it properly allowed itself to be guided by what the complainant’s physicians said was required and allowed the complainant to "define her own boundaries" in this respect. The respondent relies on the decision in Québec (Comm. des droits de la personnne et des droits de la jeunesse) et Mercier v. Montreal (City), 2000 SCC 27 [37 C.H.R.R. D/271] as support for its position that it did not discriminate against the complainant because it did not presume that she had functional limitations that prevented her from doing her job.