Scenario $3$

Doreen was employed as a waitress in a restaurant in Niagara Falls, Ontario. Doreen had rotating, irregular, and unpredictable shifts. When she returned from maternity leave, she asked to have regular static shifts on three adjacent days per week with enough hours to maintain her full$-$time status. This would allow her to arrange for child care but not affect her income and benefits. The restaurant refused her request.

She filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal that her employer had discriminated against her on the ground of family status under the Ontario Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate her childcare obligations. Family status is defined under the Code as $$the status of being in a parent and child relationship.$$

At the Tribunal hearing, counsel for the restaurant stated that the legal test for discrimination on the ground of family status was established by the $2004$ decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Health Sciences Assoc of BC v Campbell River and North Island Transition Society,$29($Campbell River$).$ In denying a claim of discrimination on the basis of family status under the British Columbia Human Rights Code, the Court of Appeal in Campbell River declared that discrimination on this ground is to be found $$when a change in a term or condition of employment imposed by an employer results in a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation of the employee.$$ Counsel for the restaurant argued that since the problem encountered by the employee in obtaining childcare support was not caused by her employer, the restaurant did not discriminate against her in accordance with the test for discrimination on the basis of family status under Campbell River.

Question: Is the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal legally obligated to apply the test for discrimination on the ground of Family Status established by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Campbell River?