View cases - Stewart McKelvey

55[198] The evidence clearly establishes that CN was not sensitive to the Complainant’s situation.It did not answer her many requests for some form of accommodation and did not even meet orcontact her to discuss her situation, even though its own accommodation policy directs that theemployee be met as a first step in the process. It is also clear from there evidence, that neitherMs. Storms, nor Mr. Torchia felt that they had any responsibility regarding any issue pertaining tothe CHRA. They both testified that the supervisor of the employee and Human Resources werethe ones with whom this issue should have been raised. Unfortunately, Mr. Pizziol, theComplainant supervisor, was not called as a witness and neither was Mary-Jane Morrison, theperson responsible for Human Resources in Edmonton in 2005.2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)[199] It is clear that CN witnesses did not consider “family status” - at least, family statusmatters that involve parental obligations and responsibilities - as a ground of discrimination thatnecessitated any form of accommodation. In their conception of the various grounds ofdiscrimination set out in the CHRA, they seem to have chosen some grounds as opening a right toaccommodation and others that did not. For example, they testified that CN had not hesitated to“accommodate” some employees who were recalled to cover the shortage in Vancouver becauseof a sick parent. They also acknowledge that CN had in the past accommodated employees formedical reason. But without inquiring into the nature of her request, they decided that theComplainant’s situation did not qualify as one requiring accommodation under the CHRA.[200] The evidence of Mr. Torchia is that he was aware of the Complainant’s situation and thathe had come to the conclusion that what she needed was more time to sort out her affairs. Henever had any discussions with the Complainant, nor did he delegate the matter to anothermanager so that he could discuss the Complainant’s request with her. He felt that he knew whatshe needed and that he had given her what she needed.[201] For her part, Ms. Storms, who was monitoring the CMC spreadsheets, knew that theComplainant’s situation had been labeled “child care issue”. In her evidence she suggested thatmany of the employees recalled had also raised child care issues and that it was becoming ageneral theme. However, no other employees, other than the Complainant, Denise Seeley and