In my view, the learned chairman plainly chose to dilute the impact of the evidence relating to the objective test by introducing the concept of accommodation. This conclusion reflects an error in law. In Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway, supra, McIntyre J., speaking for the majority of the court, said at p. 501: The bona fide occupational requirement defence set out in s. 14(a) leaves no room for any such duty for, by its clear terms where the bona fide occupational requirement exists, no discriminatory practice has occurred. As framed in the Canadian Human Rights Act, the bona fide occupational requirement defence when established forecloses any duty to accommodate.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.