The court ruled that before employers rely on
the occupational requirement defence, they must first prove the requirement is rationally connected to the job, was adopted in good faith, and is least discriminatory.
McFadden concluded, «It remains to be seen how the amendments to the Code and CHRA work in practice, particularly where an employee exercises the right not to undergo testing in circumstances where an employer can establish that requiring information about one's genetic characteristics is subject to a bona fide
occupational requirement defence.
Not exact matches
In any case, full compliance with the
Occupational Health and Safety Act duties and
requirements should provide organizations and corporations with a strong
defence against a charge of criminal negligence.