View cases - Stewart McKelvey

36(ii)The Lawa) The prima facie case[136] The initial onus is on the complainant to establish a prima facie case of discrimination onthe basis of family status. A prima facie case is “one which covers the allegations made andwhich, if they are believed, is complete and sufficient to justify a verdict in the complainant’sfavour in the absence of an answer from the respondent.” (See Ontario Human RightsCommission and O’Malley v. Simpsons – Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536, at p. 558.)[137] Once a complainant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, he or she is entitledto relief in absence of a justification by the respondent. (Ontario Human Rights Commission v.Etobicoke, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202, at p. 208.) In order to prove a prima facie case of discrimination,the Complainant must, in this case, establish that she was treated in an adverse differential mannerand was terminated because of her family status, contrary to section 7 of the CHRA.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)b) What approach is to be applied to determine whether there has been discriminationon the ground of family status?[138] The evaluation of whether there is discrimination on the ground of family status is carriedout according to the test set out in Public Service Labour Relations Commission v. BCGSEU,[1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 (“Meiorin”), just as it would be for any other prohibited ground ofdiscrimination. However, in recent years, the interpretation of the notion of “family status” hasled to the creation of two distinct schools of thought. Some cases have adopted a broad approachtowards the scope of “family status”, while other have taken a more narrow approach. In order tobetter understand what is included in the notion of “family status” we will review a certainnumber of these cases.[139] In Schaap v. Canada (Dept. of National Defence) [1988] C.H.R.D. No. 4, the Tribunal wasconsidering whether relationships formed in a common-law relationship as opposed to those in alegal marriage fell within the protected groups of “marital status” and “family status”. In itsdecision, the Tribunal found the need for a blood or legal relationship to exist and defined familystatus as including both blood relationships between parent and child and the inter-relationship