View cases - Stewart McKelvey

47the complaint and that no jurisprudence was presented as to whether the facts amounted to familystatus discrimination. (para. 289.)[170] CN’s counsel finally referred the Tribunal to a series of awards rendered by theCanadian Railway Office of Arbitration (“CROA”). Although interesting, all the CROAdecisions are founded on their particular facts and do not help us in the determination of theproper test to follow in this case.[171] The Tribunal also disagrees with CN’s argument that an open-ended concept of familystatus would open up the floodgates and that it would have the potential of causing disruption andgreat mischief in the workplace. As the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission of Albertanoted at para. 242 of its decision in Rawleigh v. Canada Safeway Ltd, decision rendered onSeptember 29, 2009, “every case must be weighed on its own merits and unique circumstances.To support the belief that the floodgate may be opened to opportunistic individuals is verydangerous and possibly discriminatory.”2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)[172] The Supreme Court of Canada and other Courts have consistently held that that humanrights must be interpreted in a large and liberal manner. In CNR v. Canada (Human RightsCommission) (Action Travail des Femmes), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114, the Court stated, atparagraph 24 :24. Human rights legislation is intended to give rise, amongst other things, toindividual rights of vital importance, rights capable of enforcement, in the finalanalysis, in a court of law. I recognize that in the construction of such legislationthe words of the Act must be given their plain meaning, but it is equally importantthat the rights enunciated be given their full recognition and effect. We should notsearch for ways and means to minimize those rights and to enfeeble their properimpact. Although it may seem commonplace, it may be wise to remind ourselvesof the statutory guidance given by the federal Interpretation Act which asserts thatstatutes are deemed to be remedial and are thus to be given such fair, large andliberal interpretation as will best ensure that their objects are attained.[173] From the above analysis, the Tribunal concludes that there are two different interpretationsin the case law with regard to a prima facie case of discrimination based on family status: the one