The author criticises the SCC finding that the manner the employee was terminated, in which the employer chose to stop accommodating the employee’s disability, did not constitute discrimination, despite the lower courts finding of bad faith. The SCC affirms that a breach of the human rights code can not constitute an independent actionable cause of action. The Court restricts the use of bad faith damages in a wrongful dismissal cases.
Discusses the difficulty in crafting a systemic remedy that is enforceable and the Supreme Court of Canada’s retreat from the issuance of systemic remedies even in a case like Moore where there appeared to be systemic discrimination.
Discusses the inter-connectedness of the concepts of duty to accommodate, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement and undue hardship. She argues that the duty to accommodate is part of the test for BFOR, within the process of justification required which is linked to the concept of reasonable necessity in step three of the Meiorin test. Discusses that the implication of the duty to accommodate, as established in the Meiorin test, requires considering alternative standards to the employers standard being questioned, which challenges norms and has the potential to affect substantive change.
Advocates for a systemic approach to anti-discrimination law and reviews the factors considered when anticipating the need for individualized accommodation; reiterates that prima facie case of discrimination should be distinct from assessments of a bona fide occupational requirement.