Hicks v. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada

Hicks v. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada

The Tribunal found a prima facie case of discrimination under s.7(b) based on family status because the 1993 Relocation Directive and its TDRA criteria excluded the claimant due to the family characteristic of eldercare for a dependant who did not reside with him; the Respondent failed to establish a bona fide occupational requirement or undue hardship to justify the exclusion, therefore the denial of TDRA constituted a discriminatory practice and remedies were awarded.

Citation
2013 CHRT 20
Parties
Complainant: Leslie Hicks; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Final Decision After Hearing and Remedial Determination
Outcome
Complaint substantiated: Respondent engaged in discriminatory practice under subsection 7(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act on the basis of family status
Legal Topics
Family Status Discrimination, Temporary Dual Residence Assistance (tdra), Bona Fide Occupational Requirement and Undue Hardship, Remedies and Compensation, Interest, Issue Estoppel
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Family Status Discrimination Temporary Dual Residence Assistance (tdra) Bona Fide Occupational Requirement and Undue Hardship Remedies and Compensation Interest +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Hicks

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Final Decision After Hearing and Remedial Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of TDRA constituted discrimination under s.7(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act on the basis of family status
  2. 2 Whether eldercare duties of a family member who did not reside with the employee fall within the ground of family status
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent justified the differential treatment under the bona fide occupational requirement/undue hardship defence

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found a prima facie case of discrimination under s.7(b) based on family status because the 1993 Relocation Directive and its TDRA criteria excluded the claimant due to the family characteristic of eldercare for a dependant who did not reside with him; the Respondent failed to establish a bona fide occupational requirement or undue hardship to justify the exclusion, therefore the denial of TDRA constituted a discriminatory practice and remedies were awarded.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated: Respondent engaged in discriminatory practice under subsection 7(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act on the basis of family status

Orders

  • Respondent to reimburse the Complainant's TDRA expenses subject to quantum to be agreed by the parties or determined by the Tribunal (Tribunal retains jurisdiction for three months)
  • Award $15,000 compensation to the Complainant for pain and suffering (paragraph 53(2)(e))