View cases - Stewart McKelvey

44[150] 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 there evidence, that neitherMr. Storms nor Mr. Torchia felt that they had any responsibility regarding any issue pertaining tothe CHRA. They both testified that the supervisor of the employee and Human Resources werethe ones with whom this issue should be raised. Unfortunately for CN, as indicated above, neitherMr. Pizziol, nor the person responsible for Human Resources in Edmonton,Ms. Mary-Jane Morrison, were called as witnesses.2010 CHRT 23 (CanLII)[151] 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.[152] Ms. Ziemer also testified that CN had accommodated an employee in order to allow himto be absent from the working board every second weekend because he only had visitation rightsfor 48 hours every two weeks. In another case an accommodation was granted to an employeewho was involved in a lengthy custody battle in Court. This person was given additional time offfor this reason.[153] Even if the Tribunal was to accept CN’s argument that it had provided appropriate“accommodation” to the Complainant by granting her more time to report to Vancouver, CN’sfailure to meet the procedural obligations of the duty to accommodate would in itself still give riseto a violation of the Complainant’s human rights. The Supreme Court of Canada hasacknowledged that both the decision-making process and the final decision have to be taken into