View cases - Stewart McKelvey

I. COMPLAINT[1] This complaint arose in April 23, 2004, and is brought pursuant to Sections 7 (b) and10 (a) and (b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (“the Act”).[2] The Complainant (Ms. Johnstone) alleges that the Respondent (CBSA) has engaged in adiscriminatory practice on the ground of family status in a matter related to employment. Therelevant prohibited ground of “family status” is enumerated in Section 3(1) of the Act.[3] Section 7 (b) of the Act reads:2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)“It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on aprohibited ground of discrimination.” [1976-77, c.33, s.7.][4] Sections 10 (a) and (b) of the Act read:“It is a discriminatory practice of an employer, employee organization or employerorganization(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training,apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospectiveemployment, that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals ofany employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.”[R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 10; 1998, c. 9, s. 13(E)][5] The practices complained of include failure to accommodate, and adverse differentialtreatment based on family status, which in this case means the raising of two young children.Pursuant to the findings in Moore v. Canada Post Corporation, 2007 CHRT 31, at para. 86“failure to accommodate” is not a discriminatory practice under the Act, as “there is nofree-standing right to accommodation under the CHRA.”[6] The alleged practice against the Complainant began in 2004. Although the Statements ofParticulars of both parties deal primarily with the time period up to and including 2007, the