View cases - Stewart McKelvey

44(a) “… the evidence must demonstrate that at an family status includes the status of beinga Parent and includes the duties and obligations as a member of society and furtherthat the Complainant was a parent incurring those duties and obligations.”[205] At page 20 of the Brown decision, the Tribunal stated that the ground of family statuscontemplated:(a) “… duties and obligations within the family”, and “that the purposive interpretation tobe affixed to s.2 of the CHRA is a clear recognition within the context of “familystatus’ of a parent’s rights and duty to strike a balance coupled with a clear duty onthe part of any employer to facilitate and accommodate that balance within thecriteria set out in the Alberta Dairy Pool case. To consider any lesser approach tothe problems facing the modern family within the employment environment is torender meaningless the concept of “family status’ as a ground of discrimination.”2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)[206] Ms. Johnstone argues that it is well established that the purpose of human rightslegislation is to protect and enshrine the rights and dignity of Canadian. As a result, human rightscodes must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner.[207] Ms. Johnstone also relies on B. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission),[2002] S.C.J. No. 67 “B. v. Ontario” at paras. 44 – 45, wherein the art confirmed that to establishdiscrimination, family status claimants need only demonstrate that they were “arbitrarilydisadvantaged on the basis of ‘family status’. In other words, the Supreme Court adopted a broadand liberal interpretation to the Act.[208] Ms. Johnstone agrees that the family obligation at issue must be substantial, however oncethat determination is made, then the Complainant states that interference with that obligation issufficient to make out a prima facie case.[209] Ms. Johnstone also raised the cases of Hoyt v. Canadian National Railway, [2006]C.H.R.D. No.33 (Hoyt). In Hoyt, the Complainant was a railway worker who soughtaccommodation from her employer to work a certain shift that would allow her to make childcarearrangements for her child. Again, the CHRT accepted that the scope of family status asencompassing childcare obligations of the nature faced by Ms. Johnstone.