Whether the employer can reasonably
accommodate the disability without undue hardship.
Not exact matches
Even where a causal connection between a proven disadvantage and a proven
disability has been established, the employer may still avoid liability under the Code by showing that the rule or requirement giving rise to the disadvantage is reasonable and bona fide and that the individual's
disability - related needs could not be
accommodated without undue hardship.
The central comparison underlying the duty to
accommodate is with regard to the disproportionately disparate effects of ableist norms and practices on persons with
disabilities, as compared with persons
without disabilities.
Section 2 of the CHRA provides that the purpose of the CHRA is to «extend the laws in Canada to give effect... to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs
accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society,
without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status,
disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.»
Lastly, the Court found there was no perceived
disability and that had there been a finding of
disability, perceived or otherwise, it would have been impossible for the employer to further
accommodate the complainant
without undue hardship given the evidence of his patterned absenteeism.
«An employer must examine options to
accommodate an employee's
disability up to the point of undue hardship... If the employer terminates the employee
without exploring and assessing the accommodation options, then the employee may have the basis for a human rights complaint.»