Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||
| Hearing: September 13, 1990 Judgment: October 13, 1990 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
|
Chief Justice: Brian Dickson |
|||||||||
| Reasons given | |||||||||
|
Majority by: Wilson J. |
|||||||||
Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commisssion), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489, is a leading Human Rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court expanded on the concept of accommodation up to undue hardship first established in Ontario Human Rights Commission and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd. (1985) and provided a set of factors to consider when evaluting undue hardship.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Jim Christie was an employee at an Albertan Dairy farm since 1980. In 1983 he joined the Worldwide Church of God and as part of his observance of the faith he had to take a number of days off work. The Dairy farm was initially accommodating but when he tried to take off a Monday, which was the businest day of the week, they refused to let him off and told him that if he did not show up to work he would be fired. Christie did not show up on Monday and when he returned from work on Tuesday his job was filled with a new employee.
Christie submitted a complaint under the Individual's Rights Protection Act for dismissal based on religious grounds. The Board of Inquiry ordered that Christie be compensated for lost wages. On appeal the Court held that attendance on Mondays was a bonafide occupational requirement and therefore a valid ground for dismissal.
The issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Dairy farm could justify the dismissal on the basis that the requirement that Christie work on Mondays is a bonafide occupational requirement under section 7(3) of the Act, if not, whether it still open to the respondent to demonstrate that it had accommodated the complainant's religious beliefs up to the point of undue hardship and if so, whether the Dairy farm in fact reasonably accommodate the complainant's religious beliefs.
[edit] Opinion of the Court
Justice Wilson, writing for the majority, held that there was no bonafide occupational requirement for Monday attendance and that the Dairy farm did not accommodate to the point of undue hardship.
Wilson described the situation of one of adverse effect discrimination, which she defines as "a rule that is neutral on its face but has an adverse effect on certain members of the group to whom it applies". Monday attendance, she found, was an isolated incident and there was no evidence that it would be a recurring event. Thus, it was not a bonafide occupational requirement.
She then considered whether the Dairy farm accommodated her to the point of undue hardship. She observed that it was not necessary to provide a comprehensive definition of undue hardship and instead gave a list of factors.
- financial costs of accommodation
- disruption of the collective agreement
- problems of morale of other employees
- interchangeability of work force and facilities
- size of the employer's operation (which may also influence the other factors such as whether the financial cost is undue or the difficulty in adapting the work force or facilities to accommodate individuals)
- safety concerns
