To determine whether a prima facie discriminatory standard is a BFOR
, an employer has to justify the impugned standard by establishing on a balance of probabilities that
Thus, CNR was not able to rely on the BFOR
defence and the CHRT found that the Complainants had been discriminated against on the basis of family status.
The Supreme Court of Canada in Meiorin expressly overruled its previous jurisprudence and abandoned the bifurcated approach whereby the BFOR analysis had been relevant only to direct discrimination and the duty to accommodate had been relevant only to adverse effects discrimination.
three-step test for determining whether a prima facie discriminatory standard is a BFOR.
An employer's BFOR
defense is not justified, however, merely by customer preferences, and particularly on pre-supposed customer preferences such as what you based your recruitment of senior citizen salon applicants.
Justice Anne Mactavish ruled that the Tribunal had acted unreasonably when it failed to acknowledge and analyze the evidence Air Canada had submitted to support its claim that an age limit of 60 for airline pilots is a BFOR.
Craig held that Air Canada had passed the Meiorin BFOR test by (among other things) establishing that the mandatory retirement standard melded the company's needs with the collective rights and needs of its pilots.
Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents had not established that mandatory retirement was a BFOR
under the CHRA.
is an employment condition that discriminates on a prohibited ground, such as age, but is allowed because of the nature of the employment.
If discrimination is not excused by a BFOR
, an employer faces a legal duty to accommodate employees who, from the section 7 list of prohibited grounds, cannot otherwise fully participate at work.
The Canadian Armed Forces had set the BFOR
at 5 feet, 2.
The burden then shifts to the employer to support the discriminatory conduct on the basis of a BFOR