View cases - Stewart McKelvey

37that arises from bonds of marriage, consanguinity or legal adoption, including, of course, theancestral relationship, whether legitimate, illegitimate or by adoption, as well as the relationshipsbetween spouses, siblings, in-laws, uncles or aunts and nephews or nieces. In Lang v. Canada(Employment and Immigration Commission, [1990] C.H.R.D. No. 8, the Tribunal stated at page 3:“The Tribunal is of the view that the words “family status” include the relationship of parent andchild.”[140] In Brown v. Department of National Revenue (Customs and Excise), (1993) T.D. 7/93,the Tribunal held at pages 15 and 20:2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)With respect to ground (b) [family status], the evidence must demonstrate that familystatus includes the status of being a parent and includes the duties and obligationsas a member of society and further that the Complainant was a parent incurringthose duties and obligations. As a consequence of those duties and obligations,combined with an employer rule, the Complainant was unable to participate equallyand fully in employment with her employer.[…]It is not suggested by counsel for the Complainant that the employer is responsiblefor the care and nurturing of a child. She was advocating however that there was abalance of interest and obligation as set out in s. 2 and 7(b) of the C.H.R.A. whichmust be recognized within the context of “family status”.A parent must therefore carefully weigh and evaluate how they are best able todischarge their obligations as well as their duties and obligations within the family.They are therefore under an obligation to seek accommodation from the employerso that they can best serve those interests.We can therefore understand the obvious dilemma facing the modern familywherein the present socio-economic trends find both parents in the workenvironment, often with different rules and requirements. More often than not, wefind the natural nurturing demands upon the female parent place her invariably inthe position wherein she is required to strike this fine balance between familyneeds and employment requirements.[141] The Tribunal finally concluded that the purposive interpretation to be affixed to the CHRAwas a clear recognition that within the context of “family status” it is a parent’s right and duty to