View cases - Stewart McKelvey

70(iv)Pain and suffering[251] Section 53(2) of the CHRA provides for compensation for pain and suffering that thevictim experienced as a result of the discriminatory practice, up to a maximum of $20,000.[252] The Complainant testified that during all the period relevant to this matter she feltdesperate and scared. She also testified that she was “stressed and very nervous”. When shereceived the call informing her that she was being forced to Vancouver, she did an evaluation ofher family situation and came to the conclusion that is was not possible for her to go to Vancouverat this point in her life. When she got the letter informing her that her employment with CN wasterminated she said that “she cried and panicked”. She added that she was shocked and could notbelieve that this was happening to her. She further testified that the lost of her career affected herdeeply.2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)[253] Although no medical evidence was produced, the Tribunal concludes that CN’s conductand nonchalant attitude towards her situation was disturbing for the Complainant. Taking thisinto consideration, the Tribunal orders CN to pay to the complainant $15,000 in compensation forher pain and suffering.(v)Willful or Reckless Conduct[254] Section 53(3) of the CHRA provides for additional compensation where the Respondenthas engaged in the discriminatory practice willfully or recklessly up to a maximum of $20,000.[255] I agree that CN’s conduct in this case was reckless. CN had adopted an accommodationpolicy, which set out the procedures to be followed with respect to any employees who reported aproblem or a special need. This policy clearly identified “family status” as one of the ground fordiscrimination. Yet, CN and the senior managers involved in this case decided that they neededbe concerned with family status and ignored their responsibilities under the policy. They didn’tmake any efforts to try to understand the Complainant’s situations. They ignored her letters anddecided to treat her case as just a “child care issue”. They felt that they knew, without ever