View cases - Stewart McKelvey

65the situation in the present case. We must remember that in order to be found to be “undue”, thecost of accommodation must be substantial. In Quesnel v. London Educational Health Centre(1995), 28 C.H.R.R. D/474 (Ont. Bs. Inq.), the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal stated, atparagraph 59: ““cost” would amount to undue hardship only if it would alter the essential natureor substantially affect the viability of the enterprise responsible for the accommodation.” This isrecognized in CN’s own Accommodation policy which states: “The costs incurred must beextremely high before the refusal to accommodate can be justified. The burden of justifying therefusal rests with the employer. The cost incurred must be quantifiable and related to theaccommodation. Renovations or special equipment can be expensive but financial aid maysometimes be obtained from various organizations.” No evidence of this nature was submitted atthe hearing.2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)(v)Conclusion[232] For all of the above reasons, the Tribunal concludes that the evidence has established thatCN has breached section 7 of the CHRA. CN’s practice of requiring the Complainant to protectthe shortage in Vancouver has had an adverse effect on her because of her family status. Theevidence demonstrates that CN acted contrary to section 7 of the CHRA by pursuing a policy andpractice that deprived the Complainant of employment opportunities based upon her familystatus.[233] The evidence also establishes that the Complainant was put at a disadvantage because ofher special needs and requirements. CN’s managers never met with her. They never allowed herthe opportunity to present and explain her needs, nor did they ask any question to fully understandher request. They never sought any advice from their own Human Resources Department. If theyhad, they would certainly have been told to initiate the policy considering Ms. Ziemer’s evidencethat the policy is initiated as soon as a employee comes forward and reports a problem or a specialneed and her evidence that taking care of an ill child, having issues regarding a custody order orbeing a single parent would at least open the door to discussions.