View cases - Stewart McKelvey

35B. ISSUES[139] The issue raised in this case is as follows: has CN discriminated against the Complainantin the context of employment contrary to section 7 of the CHRA by failing to accommodate herand by terminating her employment on the ground of family status.C. THE LAW AND THEORY OF THE CASE(i) The relevant provisions of the CHRA2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)[140] Section 3 of the CHRA states that “family status” is a prohibited ground of discrimination.3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, theprohibited grounds of discrimination arerace, national or ethnic origin, colour,religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, maritalstatus, family status, disability andconviction for which a pardon has beengranted.3. (1) Pour l’application de la présente loi, lesmotifs de distinction illicite sont ceux quisont fondés sur la race, l’origine nationale ouethnique, la couleur, la religion, l’âge, lesexe, l’orientation sexuelle, l’étatmatrimonial, la situation de famille, l’étatde personne graciée ou la déficience.(The emphasis is mine.)[141] For its part, section 7 states:7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly orindirectly,a) to refuse to employ or continue to employany individual, orb) in the course of employment, todifferentiate adversely in relation to anemployee on a prohibited ground ofdiscrimination.7. Constitue un acte discriminatoire, s’il estfondé sur un motif de distinction illicite, lefait, , par des moyens directs ou indirects;(a) de refuser d’employer ou de continuerd’employer un individu;(b) de le défavoriser en cours d’emploi.