View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Health Sciences Assoc. of B.C. v. Campbell Riverand North Island Transition Society Page 22adjunct” to the son’s wellbeing. In my opinion, this was asubstantial parental obligation of Ms. Howard to her son. Thedecision by the respondent to change Ms. Howard’s hours ofwork was a serious interference with her discharge of thatobligation. Accordingly, the arbitrator erred in not findinga prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of familystatus.2004 BCCA 260 (CanLII)[41] The appellant contends that we should advise thearbitrator that the respondent breached s. 13 of the Code bynot accommodating Ms. Howard’s parental obligation. Thearbitrator did not address that issue and, in my opinion, thiscourt should not do so in the first instance.[42] The issue of accommodation arises out of s. 13(4) of theCode that reads:13(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply with respect toa refusal, limitation, specification or preference based ona bona fide occupational requirement. (emphasis added)[43] In the application of this sub-section and others like itin human rights legislation, McLachlin, J. (as she then was)in the B.C.G.S.E.U. case (cited in para. 31 above) enunciatedthe analysis to be employed:54 Having considered the various alternatives, Ipropose the following three-step test for