View cases - Stewart McKelvey

44the Complainant’s “parental preferences and lifestyle choices.” He added that this position wasbased on an exceedingly broad interpretation of the CHRA and that the only characteristic raisedby the Complainant as triggering protection under the Act is the fact that she is a parent and assuch must see to the upbringing of her children. Counsel further submitted that requiring anemployee who is a parent to comply with his or her responsibility to report to work as required bythe collective agreement does not amount to discrimination prima facie. Rather, he argued thatthe refusal by an employee to comply with his or her responsibilities in this regard amounts to achoice which is exclusively personal in nature and which, absent exceptional circumstances, noemployer is obligated to accommodate. Accordingly, he concluded that upholding the complaintin this case would amount to adding “parental preferences” to the list of prohibited grounds ofdiscrimination set out in the CHRA under the guise of an expansion of the notion of“family status”.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[157] In support of his arguments, Counsel referred to numerous cases and awards, including theBritish Columbia’s Court of Appeal decision in Campbell River which he suggested presented amore structured and pragmatic approach than the Tribunal’s decision in Hoyt. He also madereference to an arbitration award in Canadian Staff Union v. Canadian Union of PublicEmployees, (2006) 88 C.L.A.S. 212. In this case, the grievor had refused to relocate to Halifaxafter having applied for a job which indicated that the place of work would be Halifax.The grievor resided in St. John’s, Newfoundland, where he had shared custody of his childrenwith his former spouse. He also was responsible for the care of his aging mother. The unionargued that the notion of “family status” was not limited to the status of being a parent per se, butalso extended to the accommodation of the grievor’s family responsibilities.[158] According to the award, the grievance raised important issues of human rights law whichwere summarized as follows: “ whether an employer’s designation of a specific geographiclocation in a job posting, and insistence that an employee who wished to hold that job live wherehe or she can report regularly to work at that location prima facie constitutes discrimination on thebasis of marital status or family status, if the employee’s marital and family responsibilitieseffectively preclude him or her from living where he or she can report regularly to work at thespecified location.” (at para. 6.)