View cases - Stewart McKelvey

63[299] There was no one called as part of the CBSA’s case to explain what happened to this DraftPolicy after it was circulated, why it was written in the first place, why the Director of Operationfor PIA would not have been made privy to it, or why is was not adopted after its creation. Therewas no evidence of any decisions taken not to adopt the Draft Policy for reasons of unduehardship, for example.[300] When asked about Dr. Moore-Ede’s expert report tendered on behalf of CBSA,Mr. Sheridan stated that he wholly adopted its conclusion.[301] Mr. Sheridan testified that if Ms. Johnstone was accommodated for childcareresponsibilities that he believes management would be inundated with such requests, the costswould be prohibitive, and it would be destructive to PIA operations that require that mostemployees work the VSSA schedule.2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)[302] Although Mr. Sheridan testified that there were not that many accommodation requestsmade on the basis of childcare responsibilities, he has formed this opinion of the negative impactaccommodation would have based on impressionistic reasons only. CBSA produced no studies orinquiries of any kind on the issue of undue hardship in terms of cost, morale, or operationalfailure. Impressionistic reasons are not sufficient to prove a BFOR.[303] The only evidence produced at this hearing to bolster CBSA’s position that undue hardshipwould result is the expert report and testimony of Dr. Moore-Ede that was only produced forpurposes of this hearing within the few months previous. In fact, when asked why Dr. Moore-Edehad not surveyed actual employees of PIA he replied that there had not been enough time. This is5 years post-complaint.[304] Mr. Sheridan testified that the turnover rate of PIA employees is significant and a matterof concern for management, however, there seemed to be no acknowledgement that greateraccommodation and shift flexibility might alleviate some of this problem.