Canadian Employment Law Today

June 12, 2019

Focuses on human resources law from a business perspective, featuring news and cases from the courts, in-depth articles on legal trends and insights from top employment lawyers across Canada.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 4 of 7

Canadian HR Reporter, 2019 June 12, 2019 | Canadian Employment Law Today ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jeffrey R. Smith Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at, or visit for more information. CREDIT: SAM72/SHUTTERSTOCK ited grounds of discrimination, she expe- rienced an adverse effect to her employ- ment, and the prohibited ground was a factor in the adverse impact. e board found that Havard met the first two criteria — she had two young chil- dren that required at-home care or daycare while she and her husband were at work (family status) and she wasn't able to con- tinue with her practiced of trading shifts (adverse impact). However, the board noted that more often than not, when Havard traded her shifts it was usually to be at home with her husband, not to cover childcare when her husband was at work. During these times, childcare wasn't necessary and Havard was trading her shifts to achieve a certain level of work-life balance. While work-life balance could be important, it didn't prove that Havard had made reasonable efforts to meet her childcare obligations through al- ternative solutions, said the board. In addition, since Havard wasn't actual- ly using her shift trading for childcare rea- sons, she hadn't been able to prove some of the options CSC suggested weren't rea- sonable — options she rejected in favour of only one solution that she wanted, said the board. e board also found there was no evi- dence the 7 a.m. start time for the five days per week on the 250-day post was an im- pairment to obtaining daycare, as it was the same start time for her day shifts on the ro- tating schedule. "(Havard's) case is built on the assump- tion that her accommodation needs could be met only through what I consider per- petual shift exchanges because in her es- timation, doing so had no cost implication for the employer," the board said. "She was not prepared to consider in any meaning- ful way any other options, particularly the 250-day post offered by the employer or any changes to her husband's shift sched- ule, both of which in my opinion would have been reasonable options in the cir- cumstances." e board also found Havard's claim for costs she paid her nephew for childcare was false, after Havard admitted in cross-exam- ination she had never actually paid him. e board determined Havard didn't prove she faced a bona fide childcare prob- lem that couldn't be met through reason- able alternative solutions offered by CSC. Havard's complaint was dismissed. For more information see: • Havard v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service of Canada), 2019 CarswellNat 1751 (Fed. Pub. Sector Lab. Rel. & Emp. Bd.).

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Employment Law Today - June 12, 2019