View cases - Stewart McKelvey

10[51] Effective February 12, 2007 the management structure was changed. There are now10 Chiefs within Passenger Operations: 3 per each of the two Terminals; one Chief ofEnforcement; one Chief of Corporate Services; one Chief of the Redevelopment Program; andone Chief responsible for Immigration Policy.[52] The Superintendents in the Terminals continue in the same general job description. In thecorporate area, they prepare shift schedules, manage the performance appraisal system, andmonitor the program. There are currently two Superintendents who specifically manage anyaccommodation requests by employees asking to be relieved, for whatever reason, from theVSSA schedule.2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)IV.CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL (CHRT)/CHRC HISTORY[53] There is a long history involving the CBSA (and its predecessors), and the CHRC, theCHRT and the Federal Court on the issue of the definition of family status discrimination as itrelates to employment, and on the implementation of decisions previously taken. As this historyarose repeatedly during the hearing, and many exhibits were tendered attesting to it, identifyingsome of this history at the outset is helpful as a framework to the present complaint.1984- 1993[54] February 17, 1993: The decision of Brown v. National Revenue (Customs & Excise),1993 CanLII 683 (CHRT) (Brown) dealt with the issue of discrimination based on sex(pregnancy) and family status contrary to the Act. The Respondent was the CBSA’s predecessor,the National Revenue Agency – Customs and Excise. As in this case, the Respondent took theposition that the Complainant had been accommodated to a sufficient degree to the point of unduehardship, and that she had not made adequate efforts to obtain day care, the onus for which washers alone. Although the decision was rendered in 1993, it was based on allegations that arose in1984 and 1985. The inquiry into the complaint, which was found to be substantiated, required