However, the Court found that there is no separate procedural duty to accommodate under the Act that can give rise to remedies where the employer can show undue hardship, and more specifically where the employer can meet the bona fide
occupational requirement test set out in Meiorin (British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3):
Not exact matches
(a) the
requirement that the handicapped person pass
tests that would not be required of him if he or she were not a handicapped person is not bona fide
occupational requirement; and
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.
To John G, it may be helpful to take a look at the case that set out the
test for the BFOR (bona fide
occupational requirement), Meiorin.
The case of British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees» Union (B.C.G.S.E.U.)(Meiorin Grievance)[1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 provided a 3 - point common law
test to determine whether a discriminatory standard is a bona fide
occupational requirement.
The Court adopted the two - step Johnstone
test, which requires that the complainant demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination and then requires the employer to prove that the rule, policy or practice at issue is a bona fide
occupational requirement.
They suggest that drug
testing in workplaces can only be used if it is to satisfy bona fide
occupational requirements.