|
Human Rights (Federal) - Bona Fides Occupational Requirement (BFOR). Babb v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Babb v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2022) the Federal Court of Appeal considered bona fide occupational requirements (BFOR) in a federal labour case:[2] This application for judicial review is simply about whether the Board reasonably applied the Supreme Court’s teachings in McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General Hospital) v. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital général de Montréal, 2007 SCC 4, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 161 [McGill] and in Hydro-Québec v. Syndicat des employé-e-s de techniques professionnelles et de bureau d'Hydro-Québec, section locale 2000 (SCFP-FTQ), 2008 SCC 43, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 561 [Hydro-Québec] to the evidence before it.
....
[22] Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in McGill, the Board reiterated the three-part test to justify the two-year standard (the Meiorin test) (British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, 176 D.L.R. (4th) 1 at para. 54 [Meiorin]), namely requiring the employer to prove:1) That the standard was adopted for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
2) That the standard was adopted in honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and,
3) That the standard is reasonably necessary to accomplish that purpose, demonstrated by showing that it would be impossible to accommodate the individual without imposing undue hardship on the employer.
|
