View cases - Stewart McKelvey

60decisions, the committee members follow a CBSA policy called Interim Guidelines for MedicalAccommodations.[287] Minutes of these meetings were not produced until mid-way through the hearing afterMr. Sheridan had testified to the existence and practices of the committee. Those minutesrevealed that the committee does have before it accommodation requests other than for medicalwhich Mr. Sheridan testified should not have been brought before the committee. The minutesalso revealed that at times accommodations requests had been granted for employees who hadchildren with medical needs.2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)[288] In other words, CBSA at PIA has found an efficient and individualized way to deal withmedical accommodation requests. It also has accommodated an employee with a child withmedical needs, but it will not recognize nor individually assess an employee who seeksaccommodation to care for a healthy child or children.[289] Mr. Sheridan was asked under cross-examination if his operating budget constrainedCBSA’s ability to respond to accommodation requests, and whether CBSA was under any budgetconstraints that prevented it from accommodating Ms. Johnstone’s request specifically.Mr. Sheridan’s response was, “no”.[290] In a follow-up question, Mr. Sheridan was asked if CBSA/he had taken any steps to assessthe costs of not addressing work-life balance issues. His response was, “no”.[291] Mr. Sheridan confirmed that the Treasury Board is the legal employer of BSOs and that hewould have to be given directives on work-life balance issues from Treasury Board.[292] An exhibit was put to Mr. Sheridan aimed at 24/7 operations and authored by HumanResources and Skills Development Canada with the heading, “Work/Life Balance and NewWorkplace Challenges – Frequently Asked Questions for Organizations” “Work/Life BalanceFAQs”. He was asked what he has done to respond to these directives.