View cases - Stewart McKelvey

41have also increased for families. This has helped, and is not offered in every country such as theUnited States. As a result, U.S. data on this topic is largely unreliable when discussing Canada.[190] Also, there are subsidies available to lower income families (but only if regulatedchildcare is used), but not to middle income families. The majority of Canadian families includingMs. Johnstone’s, fall into the middle income category by definition and these are the ones whohave difficulty affording third party care, but have too much income to qualify for subsidies.[191] Ms. Friendly quoted one of the main American experts in her field, Harriet Presser (ademographer at Harvard University), who wrote a 2003 book on the subject. Ms. Presser statedthat it is “rare that you have two people working unpredictable shifts who are a couple”, and thatthe main arrangement for most couples is spouses and family. Ms. Presser has written extensivelyin this area and coined the term “split shift families” referring to dual income couples who workdifferent shift schedules in order to accommodate childcare.2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)[192] CBSA’s counsel asked Ms. Friendly numerous questions under cross-examination aboutthe many factors that go into a parent’s decision to access third party childcare. Ms. Friendlyacknowledged that many factors go into such choices including cost, type of care, location,availability, quality, and comfort with the provider. The type of shift and hours worked is not theonly determining factor.[193] Although it seems evident that any number of factors may go into individual choices, thiscomplaint deals with a situation where there was no available third party childcare in any event tocover Ms. Johnstone’s work schedule, and neither her spouse nor other family members could fillthe void entirely.[194] In such a situation as this, the parent either must seek accommodation through her/hisemployer or no longer work for that employer (an alternative covered in Dr. Duxbury’stestimony). Ms. Johnstone wanted to make a career with CBSA. She had invested time, takentraining specifically for the position, and enjoyed the work. By her performance reviews and herown assessment she was good at her job. It does not seem unreasonable to this Tribunal that