View cases - Stewart McKelvey

72needs accommodation, or of whether it can implement accommodation measures, based on"impressionistic assumptions."[352] It is a clear directive to employers to make all reasonable efforts and afford employees allreasonable opportunities, not to fall back on impressionistic views standing behind unwrittenpolicies brought into practice for unrelated reasons.[353] In British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council ofHuman Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868 (Grismer) the Supreme Court of Canada stated that,“…impressionistic evidence of increased expense will not generally suffice.”2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)[354] Generally, undue hardship means “disproportionate, improper, inordinate, excessive oroppressive…” (Via Rail)[355] In that her performance appraisals were universally sound, and she had testified to oftenworking long shifts extended due to overtime requirements, this Tribunal accepts that there are noviable health and safety concerns about Ms. Johnstone performing 13 hour shifts.[356] It is telling that despite Dr. Moore-Ede’s numerical extrapolation that would see half of theCBSA employees at PIA seeking family status accommodation, Ms. Raby could not recallanother request between 2002 and the hearing, and Mr. Sheridan could think of only one instance.This testimony as to management’s actual experience with this specific workforce weighs heavilyagainst Dr. Moore-Ede’s theory.[357] Other than Dr. Moore-Ede’s report of 2009, no analysis has been done, no scientific studyundertaken, no consultants brought in to look at accommodation issues, no policies put in placesince either the Brown decision of 1993, or the CHRC direction 10 years later that policies shouldbe developed.[358] This Tribunal finds that CBSA has not established a BFOR defence, nor developed asufficient undue hardship argument to discharge the onus upon it. CBSA did not assess whether it