View cases - Stewart McKelvey

45[210] The interpretation that ‘family status’ within the meaning of the Act includes family andparental obligations that include childcare has been adopted in numerous decisions:Wight v. Ontario (Office of the Legislative Assembly), [1998] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 13 (Wight)Canada Post Corp. v. Canadian Union of Post Workers (Somerville Grievance, CUPW790-03-00008, Arb. Lanyon), [2006] C.L.A.D. No. 371 at para. 66Rennie v. Peaches and Cream Skin Care Ltd., (December 4, 2006) Human Rights Panel ofAlberta (unreported) at paras. 51, 53-54Canadian Staff Union v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (Reynolds Grievance),[2006] N.S.L.A.A. No. 152010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario Public Service Staff Union (DeFreitasGrievance), [2005] O.L.A.A. No. 396 at paras. 19 -21[211] This Tribunal notes that even the Campbell River decision and decisions that havefollowed that ruling and adopted the same approach, still accepted that childcare obligations arewithin the scope of the definition of ‘family status’ within the Act. The debate between this line ofcases and those cited by Ms. Johnstone is with the threshold required in such cases to establish aprima facie case, not with the meaning of ‘family status’.[212] The B.C. Court of Appeal in Campbell River reversed the arbitrator’s decision on thispoint and acknowledged that childcare responsibilities (in this case by a mother to provide for ason with behavioural problems) are within the scope of ‘family status’.[213] The same can be said of the Federal Court’s judicial review of the initial CHRC dismissalof Ms. Johnstone’s claim, referred to in paragraph 68 above. Mr. Justice Barnes, in overturningthe CHRC dismissal of Ms. Johnstone’s complaint, took no exception to her complaint fallingwithin the definition of ‘family status’ within the Act. This decision focused on a criticism of theapproach taken in the Campbell River line of cases as to whether interference is sufficient, or onehas to find a “serious interference” with the Complainant’s protected interests. Johnstone v.Canada (Attorney General), [2007] F.C.J. No.43 (Johnstone)