View cases - Stewart McKelvey

43In the present case, Ferguson sought to maintain a well-established pattern ofovertime hours to meet the needs of its customers. To the extent Mr. Falardeaumade the respondents aware of his child-care needs and arrangements, theythought, correctly on the evidence before me, that he was readily able to obtaincoverage for his son's care if his work hours were extended. Indeed, he had done soon many occasions. The fact that neither the pattern of Mr. Falardeau's work, norhis childcare demands or arrangements had changed, suggests that he may havemade an issue of overtime because of his dislike of work on construction sites,rather than because of his family responsibilities.There was no evidence that his son had any special needs, or that Mr. Falardeauwas uniquely qualified to care for him. Although these factors are not required toestablish a "substantial" parental obligation, the evidence in this case establishedno other factors which would take Mr. Falardeau's case out of the ordinaryobligations of parents who must juggle the demands of their employment, and theprovision of appropriate care to their children. I am unable on these facts to find a"serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty orobligation." (The underlining is mine.)2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[154] The BCHRT in Farlardeau was essentially following the reasoning formulated in theCampbell River case. But even if it had followed the Hoyt approach, its conclusion might nothave been different. The main difference between the situation in Falardeau and in the presentcase is that in Falardeau there had been no changes in Mr. Falardeau pattern of work or in hischildcare demands or arrangements. Furthermore, his employer had been made aware ofMr. Falardeau’s child-care needs and arrangements and it thought, rightly, that Falardeau wasreadily able to obtain coverage for his son's care if his work hours were extended. Therefore,Mr. Falardeau had not been able to make out a prima facie case on the ground of family status, ashe had not proven that he was unable to participate equally and fully in employment as aconsequence of his duties and obligations as a parent.[155] In the present case, the Complainant by being forced to cover a shortage in Vancouver wasfacing a serious interference with her parental duties and obligations. The matter might have beendifferent had the Complainant refused to be set up at her home terminal.[156] In his closing arguments CN’s counsel argued that the Complainant’s position was basedon an incorrect premise. He qualified the complaint as a request that the employer accommodate