View cases - Stewart McKelvey

11consideration of the nature of ‘family status’ as a prohibited ground of discrimination within theAct.[55] At page 15 of the Brown decision (supra), the Tribunal set forth the requirements toestablish a prima facie case of discrimination based on the ground of family status as follows:(a) “… the evidence must demonstrate that family status includes the status of being a Parentand includes the duties and obligations as a member of society and further that theComplainant was a parent incurring those duties and obligations. As a consequence ofthose duties and obligations, combined with an employer rule, the Complainant wasunable to participate equally and fully in employment with her employer.”2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)[56] At page 20 of the Brown decision, the Tribunal found that parents are under an obligationto seek accommodation from their employer so that they can best serve their obligations to theemployer and their duties and obligations within the family. The Tribunal went on to state:(a)“It is this Tribunal’s conclusion that the purposive interpretation to be affixed to s.2 ofthe CHRA is a clear recognition within the context of “family status” of a parent’srights and duty to strike a balance coupled with a clear duty on the part of anyemployer to facilitate and accommodate that balance within the criteria set out in theAlberta Dairy Pool case. To consider any lesser approach to the problems facing themodern family within the employment environment is to render meaningless theconcept of “family status” as a ground of discrimination.[57] Ms. Brown was also a BSO (then called a Customs Inspector) who asked to work a dayshift and if necessary to accomplish this a transfer, after her child was born to accommodatechildcare needs as both she and her husband worked shifts. The Respondent employer did notaccede to her request, as it did not recognize childcare needs for an employee working shifts as anaccommodation obligation under the Act. Having found the Respondent’s failure to accommodateMs. Brown’s request for day shift work discriminatory, the Tribunal directed the Respondent towrite a letter of apology to Ms. Brown and ordered the Respondent to prevent similar events fromrecurring through recognition and policies that would acknowledge family status to be interpretedas involving “a parent’s rights and duty to strike a balance [between work obligations and child