View cases - Stewart McKelvey

64person is assessed according to her or his own personal abilities, instead of being judged againstpresumed group characteristics which are frequently based on bias and historical prejudice.Accordingly, an employee’s individual assessment is an essential step in the accommodationprocess unless it is in itself an undue hardship for the respondent (See Grismer, at paragraphs 22,30, 32 and 38; Meiorin, at paragraph 65; Audet v. National Railway, 2006 CHRT 25,at paragraph 61 and Knight v. Société des transports de l’Outaouais, 2007 CHRT 15,at paragraph 72). Again, this individual assessment was not done in the case of the Complainant.[224] In the instant case, CN has failed to provide evidence that accommodating theComplainant would cause undue hardship in terms of costs. The only evidence regarding costwas with respect to the training of Conductors and there was no attempt to relate that evidence tothe situation in the present case. We must remember that in order to be found to be “undue”, thecost of accommodation must be substantial. In Quesnel v. London Educational Health Centre(1995), 28 C.H.R.R. D/474 (Ont. Bs. Inq.), the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal stated, atparagraph 59,: ““cost” would amount to undue hardship only if it would alter the essential natureor substantially affect the viability of the enterprise responsible for the accommodation.” This isrecognized in CN own Accommodation policy which states: “The costs incurred must beextremely high before the refusal to accommodate can be justified. The burden of justifying therefusal rests with the employer. The cost incurred must be quantifiable and related to theaccommodation. Renovations or special equipment can be expensive but financial aid maysometimes be obtained from various organizations.” No evidence of this nature was submitted atthe hearing.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)e) Conclusion[225] For all of the above reasons, the Tribunal concludes that the evidence has established thatCN has breached sections 7 and 10 of the CHRA. CN’s practice of requiring the Complainant toprotect the shortage in Vancouver has had an adverse effect on her because of her family status.The evidence demonstrates that CN acted contrary to sections 7 and 10 of the CHRA by pursuinga policy and practice that deprived the Complainant of employment opportunities based upon herfamily status.