• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Free Coronavirus FAQ 🔬
  • Free Newsletter 📨
  • Get PolicyPro Free Trial 🎉

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
You are here: Home / Human Rights / Not every change to a parent’s work schedule is discrimination

By Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation | 3 Minutes Read October 2, 2020

Not every change to a parent’s work schedule is discrimination

In the case of Suen v. Envirocon Environmental Services, ULC, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed that not every change to a parent’s work schedule will amount to discrimination on the basis of family status.

In the case of Suen v. Envirocon Environmental Services, ULC, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed that not every change to a parent’s work schedule will amount to discrimination on the basis of family status. The Court confirmed that in order for a change to a parent’s work schedule to be considered discriminatory, the change must cause “a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation.”

Background

Mr. Suen worked for Envirocon as a project manager at its Burnaby, British Columbia office. As part of his duties, he was required to travel to project sites away from home.

In January 2016, Mr. Suen was assigned as the manager for a project in Manitoba. He was told that he would be required to be away from home for eight to ten weeks and that the company would not pay for him to return home until the end of the project. Mr. Suen advised Envirocon that out of consideration for his wife and their four-month-old baby, he would not be going to Manitoba. Envirocon warned Mr. Suen that if he did not accept the assignment, his employment would be terminated for cause. Mr. Suen refused to accept the assignment and as a result, his employment was terminated for cause.

Mr. Suen filed a complaint against Envirocon with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. In his complaint, Mr. Suen alleged that Envirocon discriminated against him on the basis of his family status contrary to s.13 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code. Mr. Suen claimed that shortly after the birth of his daughter, Envirocon assigned him a project that would require him to be away from home for up to ten weeks.

In its response, Envirocon pleaded that the termination of Mr. Suen’s employment was unrelated to his family status. They later filed an application to have Mr. Suen’s claim dismissed under ss. 27(1)(b), (c) and (d)(ii) of the Code.

Tribunal decision 

In determining whether there had been a contravention of the Code, the Tribunal considered the decisions in Moore v. British Columbia (Education) and Campbell River & North Island Transition Society v. H.S.A.B.C.

In Moore, it was held that in order to succeed in a complaint of discrimination, a complainant must show direct discrimination: they experienced an adverse impact regarding their employment and a protected ground was a factor in the adverse impact.

In Campbell, it was held that in order to establish a case of discrimination on the basis of family status, the complainant must show that they suffered “indirect or adverse effect discrimination”. That is, (1) there was a change in a term or condition of their employment and (2) that change caused a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation.

After considering the above, the Tribunal concluded that it was satisfied that Mr. Suen could establish direct discrimination as well as indirect discrimination or adverse effect discrimination under the Campbell test. As a result, Envirocon’s application was dismissed.

Envirocon appealed the Tribunal’s decision on the basis that, even if the alleged facts in the complaint were true, they did not satisfy the second limb of the Campbell test.

Court of Appeal decision

Envirocon argued that the Tribunal erred in rejecting its argument that the facts alleged by Mr. Suen, at best, established a conflict between Mr. Suen’s “ work requirement” and his “parental preference”. Envirocon asserted that this was not enough to satisfy the second limb of the Campbell test. In advancing its argument, Envirocon pointed to the fact that Mr. Suen did not allege that his daughter required special care, nor did he assert that he was the only one capable of caring for his daughter. 

The Court agreed with Envirocon that the facts alleged by Mr. Suen did not satisfy the second limb of the Campbell test. The Court noted that those facts were only capable of establishing that Mr. Suen was a parent. The Court found that although Mr. Suen’s desire to remain close to home to assist his wife in caring for their baby was “understandable and commendable”, it was no different than the vast majority of other parents. The Court also found that there was nothing in Mr. Suen’s complaint or affidavit to suggest that his daughter would not be well cared for in his absence. 

As a result, the appeal was allowed. The Court quashed the Tribunal’s decision to decline to dismiss the adverse effect discrimination aspect of Mr. Suen’s complaint and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for further determination consistent with the Court’s findings.

By Anique Dublin

  • About
  • Latest Posts
Follow me

Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation

Employment Lawyers and Mediators at Rudner Law
Rudner Law is a firm specializing in Canadian Employment Law. They provide clients with strategic advice regarding all aspects of the employment relationship, negotiate and advocate on their behalf and represent them before courts, mediators and tribunals. Blog posts are written by Stuart Rudner, the principal and founder of Rudner Law, Brittany Taylor, a Senior Associate at Rudner Law, Nadia Zaman, an Associate at Rudner Law and Anique Dublin, a Law Clerk at Rudner Law.
Follow me

Latest posts by Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation (see all)

  • Performance concerns irrelevant if dismissed without cause - January 8, 2021
  • The duty to accommodate - December 4, 2020
  • Another termination clause void in the wake of Waksdale - November 6, 2020

Article by Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation / Employee Relations, Employment Standards, Human Rights / discrimination, discrimination in employment, discrimination on the basis of family status, Dismissal, employment law, family status, termination 1 Comment

Share with a friend or colleague

Learn the 10 essential HR policies in the time of COVID-19

Get the Latest Posts in your Inbox for Free!

About Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation

Rudner Law is a firm specializing in Canadian Employment Law. They provide clients with strategic advice regarding all aspects of the employment relationship, negotiate and advocate on their behalf and represent them before courts, mediators and tribunals. Blog posts are written by Stuart Rudner, the principal and founder of Rudner Law, Brittany Taylor, a Senior Associate at Rudner Law, Nadia Zaman, an Associate at Rudner Law and Anique Dublin, a Law Clerk at Rudner Law.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. diane golchert says

    November 13, 2020 at 6:51 pm

    thanks

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference Inc. (known as La Référence in Quebec) provides Canadian organizations of any size with practical and authoritative resources to help ensure compliance.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2021 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy