View cases - Stewart McKelvey

71the U.S. So, whereas in the U.S. parents may be faced with finding daycare when a child is just2 months old, in Canada this usually does not arise until the child is 1 year old. This reduces theoverall need for alternative care to ages 1 -5, as opposed to newborn to 5.[347] Further, Dr. Moore-Ede assumes that employees with childcare responsibilities wouldrequest day shifts, i.e. childcare friendly hours. He assumes from there that this would have anegative impact in terms of health and safety on non-accommodated employees. This is contraryto other evidence before this Tribunal. Ms. Johnstone in her own request did not request dayshifts. She suggested afternoon shifts.2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)VII.CONCLUSION/ANALYSIS[348] In Meiorin the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the duty of employers toaccommodate is a fundamental legal obligation. An employer must demonstrate that thediscrimination is necessary to achieve legitimate work-related objectives and tender affirmativeevidence that the point of undue hardship has been reach in its efforts to accommodate theemployee.[349] Also in Meiorin, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that “[u]nless no furtheraccommodation is possible without imposing undue hardship, the standard is not a BFOR in itsexisting form and the prima facie case of discrimination stands”.[350] In Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. Via Rail Canada Inc., [2007] S.C.J. No. 15(Via Rail) the Supreme Court of Canada stated that “undue hardship is reached when reasonablemeasures of accommodation are exhausted and only unreasonable or impracticable options foraccommodation remain”.[351] These cases very apparently set out a duty on the part of CBSA to make a real effort toaccommodate, an effort that is tangible and measurable, and tests out the employer’s ability tomeet the accommodation request. CBSA must not base its assessment of whether an employee