View cases - Stewart McKelvey

performance, not his religious beliefs. It says that the complaint should be dismissedwith costs to the respondent. In the alternative, in respect of damages, Myert says that if Ido find that Mr. Derksen was dismissed because he was not granted the day off onAugust 9 th , that I further conclude that he would not have passed his probationary periodin any event, thereby limiting the damages.IV ANALYSIS AND DECISION[61] The issues raised in this case are:1. Was Mr. Derksen’s religion a factor in the decision to terminate him?2. Did Myert discriminate against Mr. Derksen with respect to a term orcondition of his employment because of his religious beliefs?3. Was there a bona fide occupational requirement to refuse the Sabbath dayoff?4. What remedy is appropriate?[62] The relevant parts of s.13 of the Code are:(1) A person must not(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person, or(b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or anyterm or condition of employmentbecause of… religion…[63] A complainant must prove on a balance of probabilities that a respondentdiscriminated against him, in this case, based on religion. A complainant need notestablish that a prohibited ground was the sole or even the most significant factor, onlythat it was a factor that contributed to the discrimination. The overall burden is on acomplainant to show discrimination on the balance of probabilities.[64] If a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a breach of the Code occurred,the evidentiary burden shifts to the respondent to establish a non-discriminatory defence.If the respondent does not establish a defence the ultimate finding is that discriminationoccurred.17