View cases - Stewart McKelvey

74[362] The Respondent has not undertaken any detailed look at bona fide operationalrequirements and options short of undue hardship. The evidence as a whole strongly indicatesthat the Respondent has not taken these steps because it has not recognized the necessity of doingso. In other words, if the Respondent’s position is correct that child-rearing obligations for youngchildren does not fall within the meaning of “family status’ in the Act, there is no reason to doanything. The expert evidence of Dr. Moore-Ede presented through this hearing was the firststudy of any kind undertaken on behalf of the Respondent to justify or explain its position.[363] During the time period spanned by the evidence presented in this hearing, the Respondentcould have easily created written, transparent and fair policies that are uniformly applied anddemonstrate a real commitment to and understanding of human rights legislation under theenumerated ground of “family status”. At the same time, the Respondent could have dealt openlywith unique cases as they arise which the Respondent admits it has not done, within alreadyexisting mechanisms. It is admitted by the Respondent’s management witnesses, that thesemechanisms instead are reserved for those seeking medical and religious accommodations only,with random exceptions.2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)[364] Having found that Ms. Johnstone’s complaint is substantiated and that she has beendiscriminated against on the grounds of “family status”, it is important that she benefit from anindividualized assessment of her accommodation needs.VIII.DECISION[365] For the reasons that follow, this Tribunal finds that Ms. Johnstone’s complaint issubstantiated:a) Ms. Johnstone has made out a prima facie case of adverse differentiation againstCBSA within the meaning of section 7 of the Act, on the basis of family status;