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.

43referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matterrelating to employment, that deprived or tended to deprive Ms. Johnstone of anyemployment opportunities on the prohibited ground of family status?[199] In the ordinary course, to establish a prima facie case the Complainant need onlydemonstrate that a policy has had some differential impact on her due to a personal characteristicwhich is recognized as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Morris v. Canada (CanadianArmed Forces), [2005] F.C.J. No. 731, at paras. 27-28 (Morris)[200] In this inquiry, the ground of discrimination alleged is family status. There is a differencein position between the parties as to the definition of family status within the meaning of Sections3, 7 and 10 of the Act, and therefore this Tribunal must address the meaning of family statusbefore it can determine whether a prima facie case has been made out.2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)[201] Additionally, it is the position of CBSA, that the ground of family status carries with it ahigher burden of proof to establish a prima facie case, than other grounds enumerated under theAct. In this proposition, CBSA, relies on the case of Health Sciences Association of BritishColumbia v. Campbell River and North Island Transition Society, [2004] C.H.R.D. No. 33(Campbell River), and subsequent decisions of provincial human rights tribunals and federalarbitrators that have followed Campbell River’s approach on this issue.Family Status[202] Turning first to what it is meant by “family status” in the Act, Ms. Johnstone cites theprevious CHRT rulings in Brown initially discussed in Section IV above, and Wolden v. Lynn,[2002] C.H.R.D. No. 18 (Wolden).[203] The facts in Brown are very similar to this complaint and the Respondent in Brown is thepredecessor of the CBSA. The CHRT found that the complaint was substantiated in Brown, and indoing so considered the nature of ‘family status’.[204] At page 15 of Brown, the Tribunal defined the ground of family status as follows:

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!