View cases - Stewart McKelvey

43approach in Campbell River. For example, it has not been found to be applicable in the case ofprovision of services (Stephenson v. Sooke Lake Modular Home Co-operative Association,2007 BCHRT 341). It has also been distinguished in two BCHRT decisions involving anemployment situation (Haggerty v. Kamloops Society for Community Living, [2008]BCHRT 172, par. 17 and Mahdi v. Hertz Canada Limited, [2008] BCHRT 245, paras. 60 and 61).[159] In Falardeau v. Ferguson Moving (1990) Ltd., dba Ferguson Moving and Storage et al.,2009 BCHRT 272, the BCHRT referred to the Campbell River, Hoyt and Johnstone decisions, andalso to another of its decision in Miller v. BCTF (No. 2), 2009 BCHRT 34. The BCHRT pointedout that in Miller, it had stated that Campbell River applied only in the context from which itarose. It cited the following statement from Miller: “The [Campbell River] formulation of what isnecessary to establish discrimination on the basis of family status in the context of competingemployment and family obligations is not applied mechanically in all cases of allegeddiscrimination on the basis of family status.” (Falardeau, at para. 29.)2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)[160] The issue in Falardeau concerned whether an employee, who had refused to do overtimebecause of child care responsibilities for his son, had been discriminated against on the ground offamily status. The Tribunal found that the complainant had not established a prima facie case.The Tribunal stated at paras 31 and 32:In the present case, Ferguson sought to maintain a well-established pattern ofovertime hours to meet the needs of its customers. To the extent Mr. Falardeaumade the respondents aware of his child-care needs and arrangements, theythought, correctly on the evidence before me, that he was readily able to obtaincoverage for his son's care if his work hours were extended. Indeed, he had done soon many occasions. The fact that neither the pattern of Mr. Falardeau's work, norhis childcare demands or arrangements had changed, suggests that he may havemade an issue of overtime because of his dislike of work on construction sites,rather than because of his family responsibilities.There was no evidence that his son had any special needs, or that Mr. Falardeauwas uniquely qualified to care for him. Although these factors are not required toestablish a "substantial" parental obligation, the evidence in this case establishedno other factors which would take Mr. Falardeau's case out of the ordinaryobligations of parents who must juggle the demands of their employment, and the