View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 93(1) The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationallyconnected to the performance of the job;(2) The employer adopted the particular standard in an honest andgood faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of thatlegitimate work-related purpose; and(3) The standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment ofthat legitimate work-related purpose. To show that the standard isreasonably necessary, it must be demonstrated that it is impossible toaccommodate individual employees sharing the characteristics of theclaimant without imposing undue hardship upon the employer.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)[356] The first and second steps of the Meiorin test require an assessment of the legitimacy of thestandard’s general purpose, and the employer’s intent in adopting it. This is to ensure that, whenviewed both objectively and subjectively, the standard does not have a discriminatory foundation.The third element of the Meiorin test involves the determination of whether the standard is requiredto accomplish a legitimate purpose, and whether the employer can accommodate the complainantwithout suffering undue hardship: McGill University Health Centre v. Syndicat des employés del'Hôpital général de Montréal, 2007 SCC 4, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 161, at para.14.[357] As the Supreme Court of Canada observed in Hydro-Québec v. Syndicat des employé-e-s detechniques professionnelles et de bureau d'Hydro-Québec, section locale 2000 (SCFP-FTQ), 2008SCC 43, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 561, the use of the word “impossible” in connection with the third elementof the Meiorin test had led to a certain amount of confusion. The Court clarified that what isrequired is “not proof that it is impossible to integrate an employee who does not meet a standard,but proof of undue hardship, which can take as many forms as there are circumstances”: at para.12.