View cases - Stewart McKelvey

54[189] The evidence establishes that the Complainant wrote to Mr. Torchia and to other seniormanagers at CN setting out the details of her family situation and her assessment of why herfamily duties and responsibilities prevented her from reporting to the shortage in Vancouver. Shealso specifically requested a compassionate leave of absence. The Complainant had furtherclearly indicated that she was ready and willing to cover all aspects of her job as a Conductor inJasper where she had the necessary child care and family supports.[190] The evidence clearly establishes that CN was not sensitive to the Complainant’s situation.It did not answer her many requests for some form of accommodation and did not even meet orcontact her to discuss her situation, even though its own accommodation policy directs that theemployee be met as a first step in the process. It is also clear from the evidence of Mr. Storms andof Mr. Torchia that they did not feel that they had any responsibility regarding any issuepertaining to the CHRA. They both testified that the supervisor of the employee and HumanResources were the ones with whom this issue should have been raised. Unfortunately, as statedearlier, Mr. Pizziol, the Complainant supervisor, was not called as a witness and neither wasMs. Mary-Jane Morrison, the person responsible for Human Resources in Edmonton in 2005.According to CN counsel, Mr. Pizziol does not work for CN anymore and Ms. Morrison wasunavailable for personal reasons.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[191] It is clear that CN witnesses did not consider “family status” - at least, family statusmatters that involve parental obligations and responsibilities - as a ground of discrimination thatnecessitated any form of accommodation. In their conception of the various grounds ofdiscrimination set out in the CHRA, they seem to have chosen some grounds as opening a right toaccommodation and others that did not. For example, they testified that CN had not hesitated to“accommodate” some employees who were recalled to cover the shortage in Vancouver becauseof a sick parent. They also acknowledge that CN had in the past accommodated employees formedical reason. But without inquiring into the nature of her request, they decided that theComplainant’s situation did not qualify as one requiring accommodation under the CHRA.[192] The evidence of Mr. Torchia is that he was aware of the Complainant’s situation and thathe had come to the conclusion that what she needed was more time to sort out her affairs.