View cases - Stewart McKelvey

66[234] Finally, CN has not submitted any evidence that accommodating the Complainant wouldcause it undue hardship.D. REMEDIES[235] The remedies sought by the Complainant are compensation for lost wages and benefits,compensation for pain and suffering, special compensation, legal cost and interest and an orderthat she be reinstated in her employment with CN with full seniority, benefits and all otheropportunities or privileges that were denied to her The CHRC also seeks an order ensuring thatCN cease all discriminatory practices and behaviour and that it review its accommodation policy.2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)(i)An Order that CN Review its Accommodation Policy[236] The CHRC requests an order, pursuant to section 53(2)(a) of the CHRA, that CN takemeasures, in consultation with the CHRC, to redress its failure to properly accommodate itsemployees on the basis of family status, including issues of parental obligations andresponsibilities. It further requests an order that appropriate human rights training for CN’smanagerial, human resources and crew management personal be put in place and that regularinformation sessions on accommodation policies be offered in an effort to eliminatediscriminatory attitudes and assumptions related to family status as a ground of discrimination beheld.[237] Although the Tribunal acknowledges that CN has a good policy on accommodation, it isclear that it has not been applied or implemented properly in the case of family status as a groundof discrimination. Some evidence has also indicated that the policy has not been revised since theTribunal’s decisions in Audet v. Canadian National Railway, [2006] CHRT 25 and Hoyt, supra.At the most, according to the evidence of Cathy Smolynek, CN’s Senior Director of OccupationalHealth Services, some process changes were made in the disability area of the Policy, but nothingelse.