View cases - Stewart McKelvey

33[128] In reading arbitrator Picher, the Tribunal cannot but repeat what it said in Johnstonev. Canada Border Services, 2010 CHRT 20, regarding this award.[227] In Whyte the onus was put entirely on the employee to bear any burdenassociated with working for a twenty-four hour, seven day a week enterprise suchas a railway. The decision finds that “in exchange for meeting those onerousobligations railway employees have gained the benefit of relatively generous wageand benefit protections.” This suggests that an employer can discriminate as long asit pays well, and without a definition as to what ‘relatively generous’ means or whatcomparative is being used.[129] On April 1 st , 2006, the Complainant filed her grievance with the CHRC.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)B. ISSUES[130] The issue raised in this case is as follows: has CN discriminated against the Complainantin the context of her employment contrary to sections 7 and 10 of the CHRA by failing toaccommodate her and by terminating her employment on the ground of family status.C. THE LAW AND THEORY OF THE CASE(i)The relevant provisions of the CHRA[131] Section 3 of the CHRA states that “family status” is a prohibited ground of discrimination.3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, theprohibited grounds of discrimination arerace, national or ethnic origin, colour,religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, maritalstatus, family status, disability andconviction for which a pardon has beengranted.3. (1) Pour l’application de la présente loi, lesmotifs de distinction illicite sont ceux quisont fondés sur la race, l’origine nationale ouethnique, la couleur, la religion, l’âge, lesexe, l’orientation sexuelle, l’étatmatrimonial, la situation de famille, l’étatde personne graciée ou la déficience.(The emphasis is mine.)