Discrimination due to family status — the final word?
By Catherine Coulter
In a just-released decision, the Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that the ground of discrimination due to family status under the Canadian Human Rights Act includes parental obligations that engage a parent’s legal responsibility for a child, such as childcare obligations. But fear not, employers — parental choices such as voluntary family activities will not trigger similar claims of discrimination due to family status.
On 2 May 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision in the case of Johnstone v Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). Fionna Ann Johnstone had been employed by the CBSA since 1998, and her husband was employed by the CBSA as well. After having children, Johnstone asked for accommodation to her work schedule at Pearson International Airport. The CBSA had a complicated work schedule for its full-time employees, which included rotating through six different start times over the course of days, afternoons and evenings with no predictable pattern, as well as working different work days during the duration of the schedule. The schedule was based on a 56-day pattern and subject to change on five days’ notice. Johnstone could not find a care giver due to her schedule and her husband was unable to cover her work days with any certainty as he was subject to the same unpredictable schedule, albeit one that was not co-ordinated with hers.
Johnstone requested accommodation in the form of a fixed full-time schedule but was only offered a fixed part-time schedule. Interestingly, the CBSA had previously accommodated disabled employees with a fixed full-time schedule, but it refused to do so in this case because it felt it had no duty to accommodate Johnstone’s childcare responsibilities. The case moved through a long and circuitous route beginning in 2004 from the Human Rights Commission to the Federal Court, back to the Human Rights Tribunal and finally to the Federal Court of Appeal (with judicial review of some decisions along the way)…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Dentons briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Dentons
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Dentons
Governments’ efforts to curb what they perceive to be aggressive international tax planning is leading many multinational companies to question their tax advice.
The South African government has intends to move away from bilateral investment treaties (BITs), and to protect foreign investors by means of national legislation instead.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
The continent’s boom in natural resources and renewable energy is sparking an infrastructure drive