View cases - Stewart McKelvey

69(iv)Pain and suffering[243] Section 53(2) of the CHRA provides for compensation for pain and suffering that thevictim experienced as a result of the discriminatory practice, up to a maximum of $20,000.[244] The Complainant testified that between the time when she was informed that she wasbeing forced and the date she was fired, the situation wasn’t very difficult for her because shesincerely believe that everything would be resolved. But after she was fired, things were difficultfor her and her children because she did not know what was going to happen. She added that thedecision to fire her was very difficult for her. She felt that she was very close to being set up andthat now that opportunity had vanished. She described the decision to fire her as “a mind blowingsituation” and “huge blow financially and family wise.” She added that she was basically “indenial” and that she “did not think that it was possible”. She “felt rejected like in when you’relosing a spouse, a partner”.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[245] Although no medical evidence was produced to, the Tribunal concludes that CN’s conductand nonchalant attitude towards her situations was disturbing for the Complainant. Taking thisinto consideration, the Tribunal orders CN to pay to the Complainant $15,000 in compensationfor her pain and suffering.(v)Willful or Reckless Conduct[246] Section 53(3) of the CHRA provides for additional compensation where the Respondenthas engaged in the discriminatory practice willfully or recklessly up to a maximum of $20,000.[247] CN had an accommodation policy, which set out the procedures to be followed withrespect to any employees who reported any problem or a special need. This policy clearlyidentified “family status” as one of the ground for discrimination. Yet, CN and the seniormanagers involved in this case decided that they needed be concerned with family status andignored their responsibilities under the policy. They didn’t make any efforts to try to understandthe Complainant’s situations. They ignored her letters and decided to treat her case as just a