February 13, 2012
Pension Surplus: Supreme Court of Canada Hears Appeal Regarding the Removal of over $28 B…
February 12, 2012
Andrew Astritis speaks at Lancaster House Audio Conference on Dishonesty in the Workplace
January 13, 2012
2012 Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck Human Rights/Social Justice Internship
November 23, 2011
Pay Equity: Supreme Court of Canada allows PSAC’s Appeal
August 9, 2011
RavenLaw Renews Sponsorship with Ottawa Folk Festival
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recently released its groundbreaking decision in Johnstone v. Canada Border Services Agency. In its ruling, the Tribunal held that Fiona Johnstone’s employer failed to accommodate her family status obligations and, in particular, her need to provide child care for her children.
Fiona Johnstone, a Border Service Officer with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), requested a fixed shift schedule to allow her to arrange child care for her child. Like her husband, who also works at CBSA, Mrs Johnstone worked an irregular rotating shift schedule – 24 hours a day, seven days a week – which made it impossible to find a child care provider. The employer stated that it would provide a static shift for Mrs Johnstone, but forced her into part-time status.
Mrs Johnstone presented a complaint in 2004 under theCanadian Human Rights Act, which was ultimately referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a hearing. Mrs Johnstone was supported throughout this process by her union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
In its defence, the employer argued that the test for family status discrimination should be higher than that of other grounds of discrimination. In particular, the employer argued that family status discrimination should only be found where there is a “serious interference” with a “substantial parental obligation.” Mrs Johnstone, with legal representation from our firm, maintained that the threshold for demonstrating discrimination in a family status case should be no different than for any other ground of discrimination. The Tribunal agreed with Mrs Johnstone, stating that “an individual should not have to tolerate some amount of discrimination to a certain unknown level before being afforded the protection of theAct.” The Tribunal found that Mrs Johnstone had established aprima facie case of discrimination.
The Tribunal also rejected the employer’s argument that it would suffer undue hardship if it was required to accommodate Mrs Johnstone. In particular, the Tribunal rejected the employer’s submission that there would be health and safety concerns associated with Mrs Johnstone working 13-hour shifts and also rejected the expert evidence tendered by the employer that providing accommodation to Mrs Johnstone would open the floodgates to other requests for family status accommodation at CBSA. The Tribunal noted that, other than the expert report that was prepared for litigation and expressly rejected by the Tribunal, the employer had undertaken no analysis or consultations concerning the possibility of accommodating Mrs Johnstone’s child care needs.
The Tribunal ruled that CBSA’s conduct was willful and reckless in depriving Mrs Johnstone of her employment opportunities. The Tribunal ordered CBSA to pay Mrs Johnstone for lost wages and pension benefits, as well as damages totalling $35,000.
The full text of the Tribunal’s decision is available here.
The lawyers and staff at RCBY are always involved in legal or community events or dealing with cases of interest to the public. Check here for information about the latest news and the events we are involved with.
Our firm recently presented arguments to the Supreme Court of Canada in a significant case involving the removal of the over $28 billion surplus that had built up in the federal Public Service, RCMP and Canadian Forces pension accounts. Advancing arguments on behalf of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and a number of [...]
Andrew Astritis recently participated as a panellist in the Lancaster House Audio Conference entitled Lying, Cheating and Stealing: What Acts of Employment Dishonesty Warrant Automatic Discharge. The Audio Conference dealt with a wide range of issues including a review of recent case law regarding the discipline of dishonest conduct, the penalties for theft and [...]
Our firm is renewing its partnership with the University of Ottawa and continues its commitment and funding to the Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l. Human Rights/Social Justice Internship which provides a student with an opportunity to work full time over the summer as an intern in the areas of social justice and human rights. [...]
Our firm recently represented the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”) in an appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s 2005 decision to uphold PSAC’s pay equity complaint against Canada Post. In a rare ruling from the bench, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Federal Court [...]
Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck is proud to continue its sponsorship of the Ottawa Folk Festival for a third consecutive year. This year Folk Festival Participants will be able to see many fabulous acts on the RavenLaw stage. Set amidst the natural beauty of Hog’s Back Park, the Ottawa Folk Festival is a four-day [...]
The Federal Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Amos v. Attorney General of Canada, affirming the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator appointed under the Public Service Labour Relations Act to enforce a settlement agreement entered into by the parties to an adjudicable grievance. In allowing Andrew Amos’ appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal [...]
Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l. represented Bronwyn Cruden, a Canadian International Development Agency (“CIDA”) aid worker and member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”) before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Ms Cruden filed a complaint with the Tribunal in 2008 against CIDA and Health Canada after being denied a field posting [...]
The Federal Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Kane v. Attorney General of Canada, the first case before that Court involving a decision of the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned the Tribunal’s decision, which had rejected Robert Kane’s argument that his employer had committed an abuse [...]
If you would like to read older news items, please visit our News Archive.
© 2011. RAVEN, CAMERON, BALLANTYNE & YAZBECK LLP/s.r.l. All Rights Reserved. Notice to Users | Careers