The Court concluded that the scope of family - related activities attracting CHRA protection was significantly narrower than the family - related leaves
permitted by the collective agreement.
Not exact matches
This claim was denied
by the authority, based on the fact that it had consistently interpreted the
collective agreement as not
permitting workers» time as casual employees to be taken into account in determining their entitlement to additional paid leave.
The Court held that the Board further erred
by attributing human rights protection to all family - related leave
permitted under the
collective agreement, contrary to the Federal Court's earlier identification of the following four factors to establish discrimination on the basis of family status related to family responsibilities: