Case Law

BC v BCGSEU (Meorin): Issue

Whether Meorin’s termination was discrimination and thus violated BC’s HR legislation

Meorin: Decision

Rule was discriminatory because Meorin was able to show the aerobic requirement screened out more women than men on basis of physical capacity

BC v BCGSEU (Meorin): Issue

Whether Meorin’s termination was discrimination and thus violated BC’s HR legislation

Meorin: Decision

Rule was discriminatory because Meorin was able to show the aerobic requirement screened out more women than men on basis of physical capacity

The case of Moeorin set out a ___ to determine if the discriminatory rule is justified

3-part test

The 3-part Meorin test

is there a rational connection between the standard and job requirement

was it implemented on a good faith belief that it was necessary

was it reasonably necessary

Meorin: why did the SCC rule in favour of Meorin and reject BC’s arguments

employer was unable to show the aerobic capacity standard was reasonably necessary or that they couldn’t accommodate without undue hardship (failed the 3rd part of the test)

Giang v DBG Canada: Issue

whether employer met its duty to accommodate the employee to the point of undue hardship prior to terminating his employment

Giang: Decision

duty to accommodate arises at the time of the request and the employer did not have the information necessary to support its position that there was no risk

Giang: What the court said

after-the-fact evidence did not justify refusal to accommodate

procedural duty required employer to seek out further information to confirm workplace was safe for G

Bubb-Clarke: Issue

Whether the union’s decision not to transfer full seniority rights amounted to a violation of the HR code

Bubb-Clarke: Board of Inquiry decision

held the transfer was a result of his disability and the loss of seniority was a result of discrimination

Essex Police Board v Essex Police Association: issue 1

Whether employer is required to create new job based on the reassigned duties of other jobs

Essex: Issue 2

Whether employer can be required to place employee who needs an accommodation in a position that is currently occupied

Essex: Decision, Issue 1

employer must create a position from the physically less-demanding tasks performed by other officers

employer’s failure to accommodate was a breach of HRC

Essex: Decision, Issue 2

the fact that a job is filled does not create a legal bar to accommodation

Essex, decision for issue 2: decision to displace an incumbent is based on

how position is filled

how long the position has existed

whether displacement would end the incumbent’s employment

Lane v ADGA: Issue

Whether the employer failed to meet its duty to accommodate when it terminated Lane

Lane: decision

employer had not fulfilled its duty to accommodate under the Code

Sidhu v Broadway Gallery: Issue

Whether the employer’s failure to accommodate Sidhu by providing alternate work suited to her pregnancy constituted discrimination based on sex

Sidhu: Decision

employer had failed in its duty to accommodate Sidhu during her pregnancy

Sidhu: key takeaways from decision

-prima facie case because the terms of employment only changed due to dr note

-nature of work and size of workplace would have allowed alternative work

Canada (AG) v Johnstone: issue

whether employer’s refusal to accommodate the employee’s request for fixed shifts while retaining full time status constituted discrimination on the basis of family status

Johnstone: decision

Fed CA unanimously upheld the Federal court’s decision

Johnstone: key takeawy

four part test to establish prima facie case based on family status

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v Schrenk: Issue

Whether a co-worker and their employer can be liable for discrimination and harassment under the HRC when there is no employment relationship with the complainant

Schrenk: Decision

majority held appeal should be allowed; the complaint could proceed despite the lack of direct employment relationship

Schrenk: Key takeaway

prohibition against discrimination is not limited by the identity of a co-worker’s employer