View cases - Stewart McKelvey

47[219] This Tribunal does not find Madam Justice Abella’s statement in conflict with thecomplaint put before us by Ms. Johnstone.[220] This Tribunal agrees that not every tension that arises in the context of work-life balancecan or should be addressed by human rights jurisprudence, but this is not the argument putforward in the present case. Ms. Johnstone’s argument is that such protection should be givenwhere appropriate and reasonable given the circumstances as presented.[221] As discussed above, we are addressing here a real parent to young children obligation anda substantial impact on that parent’s ability to meet that obligation. It is not before this Tribunal toaddress any and all family obligations and any and all conflict between an employee’s work andthose obligations.2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)[222] CBSA set out in its written submissions information on the history of the ground ‘familystatus’ being included in the Act and provincial human rights codes, including a reference fromHansard quoting the then federal Minister of Justice’s address on December 20, 1982. TheMinister of Justice, 27 years ago, stated that the inclusion of family status “means you cannothave guilt by association or failure to employ somebody by association because someone else inhis family has a weakness of some kind…You cannot use this as reason to deny this personemployment. Each person is to be judged on his or her own merits and abilities, not on his familystatus.”[223] In Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, 2005 SCC 30, the Supreme Court of Canadaapplied Elmer Driedger’s modern approach to statutory interpretation to the Act, referencing his2 nd edition book Construction of Statutes. This approach specifies that: “the words of an Act areto be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously withthe scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”. In other words, thesupposed “intention of Parliament”, to the extent that this can be divined from the words of aMinister, is not the only determinative factor. This is especially so when the context and thescheme of the Act suggest otherwise.