2,734
edits
Difference between revisions of "BC Human Rights Code (6:III)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
BC Human Rights Code (6:III) (view source)
Revision as of 20:48, 20 December 2022
, 20:48, 20 December 2022→2. Respondent's Case
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
=== 2. Respondent's Case === | === 2. Respondent's Case === | ||
In the employment context, a respondent can justify its conduct by proving on a balance of probabilities that the rule, standard, or requirement being challenged is a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', [1999] 3 SCR 3 at para 54 [Meiorin], the Supreme Court of Canada set out the three-stage analysis for determining whether a standard is a BFOR: | In the employment context, a respondent can justify its conduct by proving on a balance of probabilities that the rule, standard, practice, or requirement being challenged is a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', [1999] 3 SCR 3 at para 54 [Meiorin], the Supreme Court of Canada set out the three-stage analysis for determining whether a standard is a BFOR: | ||
# The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job; | # The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job; | ||