View cases - Stewart McKelvey

65[226] The evidence also establishes that the Complainant was put at a disadvantage because ofher special needs and requirements. CN’s managers never met with her. They never allowed herthe opportunity to present and explain her needs, nor did they ask any questions to fullyunderstand her request. They never sought any advice from their own Human ResourcesDepartment. If they had, they would certainly have been told to initiate the policy consideringMs. Ziemer’s evidence that the policy is initiated as soon as a employee comes forward andreports a problem or a special need and her evidence that taking care of an ill child, having issuesregarding a custody order or being a single parent would at least open the door to discussions.D. REMEDIES2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[227] The remedies sought by the Complainant are compensation for lost wages and benefits,compensation for pain and suffering, special compensation, legal cost and interest and an orderthat she be reinstated in her employment with CN with full seniority, benefits and all otheropportunities or privileges that were denied to her. The CHRC also seeks an order ensuring thatCN cease all discriminatory practices and behaviour and that it review its accommodation policy.(i)An Order that CN Review its Accommodation Policy[228] The CHRC requests an order, pursuant to section 53(2)(a) of the CHRA, that CN takemeasures, in consultation with the CHRC, to redress its failure to properly accommodate itsemployees on the basis of family status, including issues of parental obligations andresponsibilities. It further requests an order that appropriate human rights training forCN’s managerial, human resources and crew management personal be put in place and thatregular information sessions on accommodation policies be offered in an effort to eliminatediscriminatory attitudes and assumptions related to family status as a ground of discrimination.[229] Although the Tribunal acknowledges that CN has a good policy on accommodation, it isclear that it has not been applied or implemented properly in the case of family status as a groundof discrimination. Some evidence has also indicated that the policy has not been revised since theTribunal’s decision in Audet v. Canadian National Railway, [2006] CHRT 25 and Hoyt, supra.