View cases - Stewart McKelvey

25balance of interest and obligation as set out in s. 2 and 7(b) of the C.H.R.A. whichmust be recognized within the context of “family status”.A parent must therefore carefully weigh and evaluate how they are best able todischarge their obligations as well as their duties and obligations within the family.They are therefore under an obligation to seek accommodation from the employerso that they can best serve those interests.We can therefore understand the obvious dilemma facing the modern familywherein the present socio-economic trends find both parents in the workenvironment, often with different rules and requirements. More often than not, wefind the natural nurturing demands upon the female parent place her invariably inthe position wherein she is required to strike this fine balance between familyneeds and employment requirements.2010 CHRT 23 (CanLII)[95] The Tribunal finally concluded that the purposive interpretation to be affixed to the CHRAwas a clear recognition that within the context of “family status” it is a parent’s right and duty tostrike that balance coupled with a clear duty on the part of the employer to facilitate andaccommodate that balance within the criteria set out by the jurisprudence. The Tribunal addedthat “to consider any lesser approach to the problems facing the modern family within theemployment environment is to render meaningless the concept of “family status” as a ground ofdiscrimination.”[96] The Tribunal also considered “family status” as a ground of discrimination in Hoytv. Canadian National Railway, [2006] C.H.R.D. No. 33. In this decision, the Tribunal referred toa judicial definition of the term “family status”, as well as to prior decisions of the Tribunal whichset forth requirements to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on that ground.The Tribunal specifically stated :117 Discrimination on this ground has been judicially defined as '... practices orattitudes which have the effect of limiting the conditions of employment of, or theemployment opportunities available to, employees on the basis of a characteristicrelating to their ... family.' (Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Mr. A et al[2000] O.J. No. 4275 (C.A.); affirmed [2002] S.C.J. No. 67].