[2013] 2 F.C.R. D-6
Human Rights
Judicial review of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision allowing respondent’s (Denise Seeley) complaint of human rights discrimination because of family status by applicant, respondent’s employer—In complaint, respondent alleging suffering discrimination on basis of family status since applicant failing to accommodate respondent’s parental childcare obligations, terminating employment thereof—Family status constituting protected ground under Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, s. 3—Respondent employed by applicant as freight train conductor, living in Alberta—Recalled to report to temporary work assignment to cover work shortage in Vancouver but respondent having childcare issues—Tribunal finding respondent had proven prima facie employment discrimination on basis of family status, finding applicant not meeting duty to accommodate respondent—Also issuing remedial order against applicant, awarding additional damages for reckless conduct—Whether Tribunal erring: in finding prima facie discrimination on evidence on record; in finding applicant failing to accommodate respondent; in issuing order for remedies—Issues herein similar to those in Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnstone, 2013 FC 113, which will be reported in F.C.R.—Term “family status” mentioned in Act, s. 3 but not defined—“Family status” should be interpreted in large, liberal manner consistent with attainment of Act’s objectives, purposes—Tribunal’s interpretation of “family status” as including childcare obligations within scope of ordinary meaning of words; in accord with objects of Act, which expressing Parliament’s intent; interpreted liberally giving right enunciated full recognition, effect; in keeping with previous decisions in related human rights, labour forums, relevant case law—Therefore, Tribunal’s interpretation of “family status” reasonable—As for prima facie finding of discrimination based on family status, respondent provided evidence thereof; constituting primary caregiver for two young children, husband working full time—Realistic assessment of respondent’s family circumstances disclosing respondent would have significant difficulty in fulfilling childcare responsibilities in responding to indefinite recall assignment to cover Vancouver shortage—Respondent satisfying requirement for having substantial childcare family obligations; thus Tribunal’s finding thereon reasonable—Tribunal’s determination applicant not meeting duty to accommodate also reasonable—Tribunal considering evidence on record, in particular that applicant never responded to respondent’s request for accommodation because of family status; considering whether applicant satisfied burden of demonstrating that accommodation would cause undue hardship thereto; finding that merely providing extra time to respondent to report for duty not meaningful response to request for accommodation—Finally, Tribunal not erring in awarding compensation since having sufficient basis to reasonably conclude applicant’s conduct reckless—Application dismissed.
Canadian National Railway v. Seeley (T-1775-10, 2013 FC 117, Mandamin J., judgment dated February 1, 2013, 45 pp.)