View cases - Stewart McKelvey

52Has CN established that it could not accommodate the Complainant without undue hardship?[182] CN’s third and final hurdle is to demonstrate that the impugned standard is reasonablynecessary for the employer to accomplish its purpose. At this stage, CN must establish that itcannot accommodate the Complainant and others adversely affected by the standard withoutexperiencing undue hardship. In other words, since the Complainant was adversely affected onthe ground of her family status by the standard of forcing employees to cover shortages, could CNaccommodate her without experiencing undue hardship?[183] The use of the term “undue” infers that some hardship is acceptable. It is only “unduehardship” that satisfies this test. (See Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, [1992]2 S.C.R. 970, at page 984.) It may be ideal for an employer to adopt a practice or standard that isuncompromisingly stringent, but if it is to be justified it must accommodate factors relating to theunique capabilities and inherent worth and dignity of every individual, up to the point of unduehardship. (Meiron, supra, at para. 62.) Furthermore, when an employer is assessing whether it canaccommodate an employee it must do an individualized assessment of the employee’s situation.In this regard, in McGill University Health Centre (Montréal General Hospital) v. Syndicat desemployés de l’Hôpital général de Montréal, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 161, at para. 22, the Supreme Courtof Canada stated: “The importance of the individualized nature of the accommodation processcannot be minimized.”2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[184] In Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 2 S.C.R.489, at pages 520-21, Wilson J. addressed the factors that may be considered when assessing anemployer’s duty to accommodate an employee to the point of undue hardship. Amongst therelevant factors are the financial cost of the possible method of accommodation, the relativeinterchangeability of the workforce and facilities and the prospect of substantial interference withthe rights of other employees. It was also stated that a standard or practice that excludes membersof a particular group on impressionistic assumptions is generally suspect. (British Columbia(Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia Council of Human Rights, [1999] 3 S.C.R.868 (Grismer), at para. 31). Employers must be innovative yet practical when consideringaccommodation options in particular circumstances.