View cases - Stewart McKelvey

67[238] The Tribunal has referred in this decision to the Accommodation Guidelines and hasdetermined that the managers and supervisors have failed to follow this policy in theComplainant’s case. Having reviewed the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that CHRC’s requestis justified.[239] The Tribunal therefore orders CN to work with the CHRC to ensure that thediscriminatory practice and behaviour does not continue and to make sure:a) that the appropriate policies, practices and procedures are in place, andb) that CN, in consultation with the CHRC, retains appropriate persons to conductworkplace training for managers, human resource staff, CMC employees and anyother employees deemed necessary on issues of discrimination and human rightsand particularly on accommodation on the ground of family status.2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)(ii) Reinstatement[240] The Complainant seeks an order, pursuant to s. 53(2)(b) of the CHRA, directing CN toreturn her to her employment as a Conductor. Section 53(2)(b) of the CHRA states that where theTribunal finds the complaint is substantiated, it may order a respondent to make available to thevictim of the discriminatory practice, on the first reasonable occasion, the rights, opportunities orprivileges that were denied the victim as a result of the practice.[241] In order to provide this remedy in the present case, the Complainant must therefore bereturned to her job without lost of seniority. The Tribunal therefore orders CN to return theComplainant to her position as Conductor at the Jasper terminal, after she has, if necessary,updated her rules and medical certificates.[242] There are three possible starting dates that the Tribunal could reasonably fix for theComplainant reinstatement. The first date suggested is July 2 nd , 2005, which could be seen as theeffective date for implementation of the Complainant’s request to be accommodated by being“set up” in a full time position in Jasper. The Tribunal does not accept this as an appropriate date