View cases - Stewart McKelvey

41[220] This Tribunal agrees that not every tension that arises in the context ofwork-life balance can or should be addressed by human rights jurisprudence, butthis is not the argument put forward in the present case. Ms. Johnstone’s argumentis that such protection should be given where appropriate and reasonable given thecircumstances as presented.[221] As discussed above, we are addressing here a real parent to young childrenobligation and a substantial impact on that parent’s ability to meet that obligation.It is not before this Tribunal to address any and all family obligations and any andall conflict between an employee’s work and those obligations.[…]2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[230] […] this Tribunal finds nothing in Section 2 that creates a restrictive andnarrowinterpretation of ‘family status’.[231] To the contrary, the underlying purpose of the Act as stated is to provide allindividuals a mechanism “to make for themselves the lives that they are able andwish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their dutiesand obligations as members of society…” It is reasonable that protections soafforded include those naturally arising from one of the most fundamental societalrelationships that exists, that of parent to child. The fact that the language ofSection 2 mentions “lives that they are able and wish to have” carries with it theacknowledgement that individuals do make separate choices, including to havechildren, and that the Act affords protection against discrimination with respect tothose choices.[…][233] This Tribunal finds that the freedom to choose to become a parent is so vitalthat it should not be constrained by the fear of discriminatory consequences. As asociety, Canada should recognize this fundamental freedom and support thatchoice wherever possible. For the employer, this means assessing situations suchas Ms. Johnstone’s on an individual basis and working together with her to create aworkable solution that balances her parental obligations with her workopportunities, short of undue hardship.[150] Recently the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the “PSST”) considered whether to followthe approach to family status set out in Hoyt or in Campbell River and determined that it would