Health Sciences v. Transition Soc.,

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Judge: Low, Levine and Smith, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2004 BCCA 260
• Citation: 2004 BCCA 260,(2004), 196 B.C.A.C. 236 (CA),240 DLR (4th) 479,28 BCLR (4th) 292,196 BCAC 236,[2004] BCJ No 922 (QL),130 ACWS (3d) 747,50 CHRR 140,[2004] B.C.J. No 922 (QL),240 D.L.R. (4th) 479,196 B.C.A.C. 236,(2004), 196 BCAC 236 (CA)
• Date: 08 December 2003
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)

Health Sciences v. Transition Soc. (2004), 196 B.C.A.C. 236 (CA);

    322 W.A.C. 236

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.039

Health Sciences Association of British Columbia (appellant) v. Campbell River and North Island Transition Society and Community Social Services Employers' Association (respondent)

(CA30325; 2004 BCCA 260)

Indexed As: Health Sciences Association of British Columbia v. Campbell River and North Island Transition Society

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Low, Levine and Smith, JJ.A.

May 10, 2004.

Summary:

A union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee, alleging that the employer refused to continue to employ or otherwise discrimi­nated against the employee on the basis of her family status within the meaning of s. 13(1) of the Human Rights Code (B.C.). The union argued that by changing the em­ployee's hours of work, the employer failed to accommodate her particular family situ­ation. The employee had a 13 year old son with severe behavioral (psychiatric) problems requiring specific parental attention after his school hours. An arbitrator appointed under the collective agreement ruled that the employer had not breached s. 13(1). The union appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the arbitrator on the basis that the arbitrator erred in not finding a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of family status.

Civil Rights - Topic 918

Discrimination - Family status - What constitutes "family status" - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the meaning and scope of the phrase "family status" as it appeared in the s. 13(1) of the Human Rights Code (B.C.) - See para­graphs 1 to 47.

Civil Rights - Topic 918

Discrimination - Family status - What constitutes "family status" - A union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee, alleging that the employer refused to con­tinue to employ or otherwise discriminated against the employee on the basis of her family status (Human Rights Code (B.C.), s. 13(1)) - The union argued that by changing the employee's hours of work, the employer failed to accommodate her particular family situation - The employee had a 13 year old son with severe psychiat­ric problems requiring specific parental attention after his school hours - An arbi­trator appointed under the collective agree­ment ruled that the employer had not breached s. 13(1) - The union appealed - The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the arbitrator on the basis that the arbi­trator erred in not finding a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of family status - See paragraphs 1 to 47.

Words and Phrases

Family status - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the meaning and scope of the phrase "family status" as it appeared in the s. 13(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 - See paragraphs 2 to 47.

Cases Noticed:

Lang v. Employment and Immigration Commission, [1990] 12 C.H.R.R. D/265 (Can. Human Rights Trib.), refd to. [para. 15].

Campbell v. Shahrestani, [2001] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 36, refd to. [para. 15].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 16].

Brown v. Department of National Revenue (Customs and Excise), [1993] 19 C.H.R.R. D/39 (Can. Human Rights Trib.), refd to. [para. 19].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) v. A et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 403; 294 N.R. 140; 166 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

B. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) - see Human Rights Commission (Ont.) v. A.

Public Service Employee Relations Com­mission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Gov­ernment and Service Employees' Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868; 249 N.R. 45; 131 B.C.A.C. 280; 214 W.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 31].

Woiden v. Lynn, [2002] C.H.R.D. No. 18 (Can. Human Rights Trib.), refd to. [para. 32].

Wight v. Ontario (Office of the Legislative Assembly), [1998] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 13 (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry), refd to. [para. 36].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210, sect. 13(1) [para. 2].

Counsel:

Ritu N. Mahil and M. Jeanne Meyers, for the appellant;

Michael A. Wagner and J.D. Nichols, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 8, 2003, before Low, Levine and Smith, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Low, J.A., on May 10, 2004.