09.07.2015 Views

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

2complaint filed herein referred to the discrimination as being “ongoing”. Ms. Johnstone took thesame position at the hearing that the discrimination complained of constituted a “continuingevent” and is ongoing. The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) supported thisapproach.[7] The Respondent objected to the introduction of evidence being led pertaining to the timeperiod after 2007 as constituting “post complaint” allegations, and that such evidence would betoo remote in time in terms of relevancy. The complaint herein was filed April 23, 2004.[8] The Tribunal accepted the Complainant’s and the CHRC’s characterization of thecomplaint as ongoing, and noted that the written complaint made this assertion. The allegationsraised under Section 10 of the Act also speak to the conduct complained of being systemic innature, and remedies sought reflect this position.2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)[9] Evidence was presented by all parties as to CBSA practices, CBSA written and unwrittenpolicies, a relevant collective agreement as amended over the full time period, the governingVariable Shift Scheduling Agreement (VSSA) in place at the time of the complaint and as lateramended, and implications both past and present of the implementation of those practices,policies and agreements.[10] Ms. Johnstone alleges that the CBSA’s policies forced her into part-time status upon herreturn to work after having each of two children, resulting in her being given fewer hours of workthan she was willing and able to work, with an attendant loss of benefits that are available tofull-time employees, including benefits under her collective agreement and pension entitlementsunder the Public Service Superannuation Act.[11] Both the Complainant and the CBSA were represented by legal counsel at the hearing.CHRC was also represented by legal counsel, but addressed only the Section 10 arguments raisedby the complaint. It was very beneficial to this Tribunal to have experienced senior legal counselacting on behalf of all parties.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!