[2012] 2 F.C.R. D-2
Human Rights
Judicial review of respondent’s two screening decisions regarding two different positions applicant applying for therewith—Applicant screened out of competition because failing to meet minimum experience requirement (“recent, significant experience”) for positions—Although applicant’s two maternity leaves accommodated as “experience”, applicant’s more than three years of leave without pay for family-related needs excluded—Whether respondent erring in failing to treat applicant’s family leave as leave protected under Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 as done with maternity leave; whether experience requirement creating adverse effect discrimination—Act, s. 3 establishing prohibited grounds of discrimination, including family status—While term “family status” not defined in Act, circumstances of parent caring for children must be included therein—Quasi-judicial labour decisions consistently determining that under Act, “family status” encompassing family, parental obligations, including childcare—Therefore, “family status” including obligations of one family member to care for other members of family—Applicant establishing prima facie case of discrimination based on family status, contrary to Act, ss. 7, 10—No principled reason why family leave should be treated any differently under Act than maternity leave—Respondent failing to provide reasonable explanation for discrimination—Therefore, matter returned to respondent for consideration of applicant’s applications for two positions in accordance with Act, s. 15—Application allowed.
Patterson v. Canada (Revenue Agency) (T-569-11, 2011 FC 1398, Snider J., judgment dated December 1, 2011, 21 pp.)