Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 44 Adverse effect discrimination will be limited to a smaller group as it was in the above case which involved the termination of an employee who was unavailable for work on Friday evenings and Saturday because of her religion. While the right to practice her religion was not absolute, the court found that the employer must take such steps as were reasonable to accommodate the practice of the employee's religion without unduly interfering with the employer's business. Correspondingly, the employee must be prepared to take some accommodating steps and maybe either sacrifice his religious beliefs or his employment. (para. 25) 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) In my view, the tests of "reasonable accommodation" and "undue hardship" weigh in favour of the respondent. If the CRHC is under a duty to take such steps as are reasonable to accommodate Mr. Young’s disability, it has met this standard. There do not appear to be any accommodation measures other than those already offered that would permit Mr. Young to smoke marihuana in his suite without drastically impeding the quality of life of the other tenants. The reasonable measure proposed by the CRHC, namely, the sealing of Mr. Young's door, was refused by Mr. Young. [92] The evidence suggests that accommodating Mr. Young’s disability would require the CRHC to deprive many other tenants of the enjoyment of their suites. It is also likely that the CRHC would continue to lose tenants. This result would undermine the very purpose for the CRHC's existence, to
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 45 provide quality housing, particularly to those living on low incomes. [93] Although the alleged CRHC policy may have had an adverse effect on Mr. Young by reason of a characteristic incidental to his disability, that policy is reasonably necessary to avoid undermining the legitimate objectives for which the CRHC was established. To force the CRHC and its tenants to 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) tolerate Mr. Young's marihuana smoking would, in my view, constitute an imposition of undue hardship. [94] A successful s. 1 defence requires that the limit be "prescribed by law." While I have assumed that the CRHC acted pursuant to a policy, I appreciate that in evicting Mr. Young, the CRHC sought an available statutory remedy under the RTA. If I were to examine the provisions of the RTA for compliance with s. 1, the result would be the same. [95] The difficulty in pinpointing the proper law or policy to be examined stems largely from the dubious assumption that the CRHC is a governmental body. On the facts, such an assumption appears unfounded. If the CRHC were acting pursuant to enabling legislation that gave it the power to evict or to carry out the functions of a landlord, Mr. Young might be able to assail that legislation or the exercise of discretion under that legislation.
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 43: Young v. Saanich Police Department,

Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?