bona fide occupational requirement

Frustration of contract, absenteeism, modified duties, bundling work, creating new position.

The article distinguishes between how discrimination is determined under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights. An extensive discussion of the distinctions between prima facia discrimination under the codes and discrimination in a substantive sense under the Charter and the different thresholds of proof required by the claimant under each statue. Defines systemic discrimination under human rights codes.

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.

A philisophical discussion of the market influence on the duty to accommodate. A useful discussion of the standard for an employer to establish BFOR. Discusses analysis to determine reasonable accommodation. Discusses how certain decisions of the SCC have moved towards acknowledgment of the social model of disability. 

The article reviews the law around physical standards constituting a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement.