Topic: I need a research paper about the duty to accommodate “family status” in the Canadian workplace. The paper should provide critical analysis of the leading legal tests for proving a prima facie case of “family status” discrimination under Canadian human rights law. Please include an abstract of no more than 200 words that synthesizes the main argument and a plagiarism report. Issues/questions: Here are some of the issues/questions the “family status” paper should address (doesn’t have to be in this order): · Introduction should include a brief history of the recognition of “family status” as a protected ground under Canadian human rights law + how it is defined in the federal and provincial human rights codes. It should also discuss the duty to accommodate. · How to make out a successful prima facie case of discrimination according to Canadian case law o Debate continues and remains an unresolved and unstable area of the law o Outline the different legal tests and their development in the case law · When a complainant alleges family status discrimination in an employment context, courts have not followed the prima facie discrimination test articulated in Moore. Why not? o Why have adjudicators made it more difficult to establish prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status? · What are some of the underlying reasons the law is so unsettled in this area? What is it about family status as a ground of discrimination that creates such uncertainty and conflicting views of what the proper test for discrimination should be? · Does the 4-part test set out by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Johnstone prioritize parent-child relationships over other types of familial caring obligations and relationships? o Think about this in light of what the definition of family status is § For example: what about eldercare obligations? No legal obligation to take care of an adult. o Think of interpretative difficulties or conflictual viewpoints that may exists for what falls under what category · In her article, Elizabeth Shilton argues that branch 3 and 4 of the Johnstone test place a higher burden on the complainant than is present in human rights litigation on other grounds of discrimination. Why is this the case and how should it be resolved? o Not supposed to be a hierarchy of rights or hierarchy of grounds o Also, consider access to justice point of view · The idea of the duty to “self-accommodate” when it comes to obligations related to family status o The test in Moore does not require the complaints to seek any kind of other reasonable solution in order to establish a prima face case of discrimination. o Is the duty to self-accommodate consistent with fundamental human rights principles? Reflect on legitimacy of a duty to self-accommodate. How does it fit with the general principles of the duty to accommodate in human rights law? · Discuss the difficulties of imposing a rigid and narrow test for family status discrimination · Gendered impact of the high threshold for family status discrimination o Intersectional analysis of gender and parenting o Should Human Rights Tribunals acknowledge the nexus between family status and gender inequalities in the public and private spheres? Why or why not? And if so, how? o Consider the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision of Fraser v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 (paragraphs 114-124) · What is the preferred test for “family status” discrimination and why? What is the rationale for the approach that you think should be taken in the case law? Feel free to address any other issues and provide further analysis.