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
jeffrey.smith@habpress.ca, or visit
www.employmentlawtoday.com 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.).
