Jimand Emmanuel were engineers with a mining company that frequently sent employees toremotejobsitesforlongperiodsoftimewhilenewpropertieswerebeingdeveloped.Becauseof the time employees were required to stay at the remote sites, the company paid itsemployees extremely well and attracteda large number ofunmarried young men to both itsprofessionalandlabouringpositions.

Thecompanyhaddiscovered,however,thatithaddifficultyattractingandkeepingmoreseniorand experienced personnel at the job sites. These employees were always in demand for thesupervisory tasks and inevitable problems that required the expertise of experiencedprofessionals. After discovering that one of the main factors that discouraged senior employeesfrom accepting such positions was their reluctance to be absent from their families. Thecompany offered to pay all costs of a return flight home once each month for married staff atremotesites.

When Jim and Emmanuel were interviewed for positions with the company, they were told ofthispolicyformarriedstaff.Neithermanwasmarriedandwhenbothwereofferedpositionsashort time later, they understood that they would not be eligible to receive the travelallowance.

One evening, Jim and Emmanuel were talking with some of the other employees at the job siteabout the travel policy. A colleague said that he would like tobe able to get home to see his illfathermoreoften,buthecouldnotaffordthecostofacommercialflightonaregularbasisandsince he was not married, he was not entitled to the company allowance. Overhearing this, oneof the more senior employeescommented, "I don't think that the policy is very fair. Come tothink of it, isn't there some law against that? You guys should talk to management about that.Theyaregoodguysandmightmake somechanges."

Discuss the legal issues raised in this case and what arguments that you would use if yourepresented the employees and what arguments you would use if you represented thecompany.Explainthefactorsthatacourtwouldconsiderandrenderadecisiononthecourt'sbehalf.

See: Ontario Human Rights Commission v. London Monenco Consultants Ltd. et al. (1992) 9 O.R. (3d) 509 for a similar case.

Give arguments from plaintiff,judge and defendant