View cases - Stewart McKelvey

[68] As a result of finding that there is a case establishing that discrimination occurredon the basis of Mr. Derksen’s religion, I must now turn to the duty to accommodate. Inessence, Imbenzi’s directions in his letter of July 9 th , established a rule or policy whichwas prima facie discriminatory. In order to justify that rule, based on the test outlined inBritish Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. B.C.S.G.E.U.,(“Meiorin”), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3, a respondent must show on the balance of probabilitiesthat:1. The standard was adopted for a purpose or goal that is rationally connectedto the function being performed;2. The standard was adopted in good faith in the belief that it is necessary forthe fulfillment of the purpose or goal; and3. The standard is reasonably necessary to accomplish its purpose or goal, inthe sense that the respondent cannot accommodate persons withcharacteristics of the complainant without incurring undue hardship.[69] Imbenzi required that Mr. Derksen to attend at work, even on days where he wasobligated by his religion to observe a Sabbath. Imbenzi apparently established thestandard to ensure that Mr. Derksen was at work fulfilling his duties as Project Coordinatorof the Program. Therefore, I find it reasonable to conclude that the first twotests in Meiorin are met; Mr. Derksen did not vigorously dispute this point.[70] Myert did introduce some evidence through Ms. Sangha and Ms. Bottiglieri aboutits religious tolerance, but that is not the relevant assessment to be made. What isrequired of an employer is that they assess the individual request as against the standardand determine that a request could not be accommodated without undue hardship. I haveno evidence that Myert made any effort to accommodate Mr. Derksen. Mrs. Imbenzistated that if she had received sufficient notice from Mr. Derksen that he needed the dayoff for religious purposes, she might have been able to accommodate him. However,Myert did not accommodate him and thus, I find it has failed to show that itaccommodated Mr. Derksen to the point of undue hardship.19