View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Health Sciences Assoc. of B.C. v. Campbell Riverand North Island Transition Society Page 16declined to do directly through specific legislation.Therefore he restricted “family status” under the Code “to thestatus of being a parent per se” without regard to the“innumerable (and yet important) circumstances that arise forall families in regard to their daycare needs.”[30] Sections 50 to 54 of the Employment Standards Act dealwith four specific matters – pregnancy leave, parental leave,2004 BCCA 260 (CanLII)family responsibility leave and bereavement leave. It cannotbe said that the scope of family status in s. 13(1) of theCode is determined by the more specific statute. I cannotfind any wording in either statute that would lead to thatconclusion. Section 13(1) of the Code legislates againstdiscrimination “regarding … any term or condition ofemployment”. On the reasoning of the arbitrator those wordswould be superfluous. In my opinion, the arbitrator erred inconsidering the provisions of the Employment Standards Actwhen attempting to determine the scope of the term “familystatus” in s. 13(1) of the Code.[31] Although it was not so stated by the arbitrator, it seemsto be clear from the authorities that the first issue iswhether the appellant has made out a prima facie case ofdiscrimination that requires consideration of the issue ofaccommodation: see British Columbia (Public Service Employee