Introduction
The work force looks very different than it did forty years ago. Women have increasingly entered the workforce, including into occupations that were once dominated by men. This means that all employers must now adapt to accommodate the different needs of women. One of these needs is the accommodation of pregnancy in the workplace.
Based on questions received at the Commission, this subject is one of the most misunderstood areas of human rights law. Employers often view pregnancy as a personal choice that does not give rise to any obligations on part of the employer. This viewpoint is inaccurate, and may lead to workplace policies that are unfair to women.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Act requires that employers give women equal opportunity in the workplace. Equal opportunity does not exist if women are penalized for participating in an activity that is beneficial to society as a whole: procreation.[1] Employers must take measures to accommodate pregnancy, and this duty goes further than some employers realize.
When the issue of pregnancy arises, both the employer and the pregnant employee have certain roles and responsibilities. These guidelines explain what kind of behaviors are, and are not, appropriate from a human rights perspective, and explains the roles and obligations of both parties.[2]
Readers should be advised that these guidelines do not address the issue of paternity leave, which would likely fall under another ground of discrimination; family status. For further information on this topic, please contact the Human Rights Commission or your legal counsel.
Relation to Human Rights Act
The Human Rights Act protects individuals from being discriminated against on the basis of what are called “prohibited grounds.” One prohibited ground is discrimination on the basis of sex.[3] Discrimination is prohibited in employment; the provision of goods, services, accommodations and facilities; the right to occupy commercial or dwelling units; contracts; and advertising.[4]
Discrimination in the context of employment occurs when an employer makes a distinction or imposes differential treatment on the basis of one of these prohibited grounds in a way that puts the employee at a disadvantage. This includes the refusal to hire, the refusal to continue to hire, or the imposition of burdens that other employees do not face.
An example of discrimination is where an employer refuses to promote someone because she is a woman. The employer has made a distinction on the basis of ‘sex’ (a protected ground) and put the employee at a disadvantage because of this distinction.
Pregnancy and Discrimination
The issue of pregnancy in the workplace was once somewhat controversial. It was once the case that terminating a woman because she was pregnant was not considered discrimination. Pregnancy was considered a personal choice made by the woman, and she alone was expected to absorb the consequences of that choice.[5]
Modern society no longer subscribes to this viewpoint. To deny opportunities or to impose restrictions on pregnant women is fundamentally unfair to women. Although it is a personal choice to decide to become pregnant, it is a choice that only women are faced with.
In 1989 the Supreme Court of Canada made the following statement about the exclusion from a benefits plan based on pregnancy: “Such an unfair disadvantage may result when the costs of an activity from which all of society benefits are placed upon a single group of persons.”[6] To alleviate this disadvantage, the law now requires that employers not discriminate against pregnant women and make efforts to accommodate pregnancy.[7]
An employer may not agree with the rationale behind this change, but regardless of such personal beliefs an employer can be held legally responsible for treating a pregnant employee/potential employee differently.
What would be Discriminatory: The Four Fundamentals
There are a variety of different kinds of actions an employer might take that would be discriminatory. Before elaborating further, it is important that employers understand four fundamentals about discrimination. Keep these fundamentals in mind when reviewing the examples that are provided.
1. Intent is Irrelevant
Discrimination under the Act does not require intent. It is the effect of an employer’s actions, not the intent that matters. For example, an employer might overlook an employee who is out on pregnancy leave while considering candidates for an upcoming promotion. This could be found to be discriminatory, even though the employer did not purposely exclude the employee from consideration.
2. Assumed limitations
Human rights complaints sometimes arise because employers do not understand the actual functional limitations of a pregnant employee. This may occur when an employer acts on what he or she believes or assumes are the pregnant employee’s limitations. For example, an employer might assume a pregnant employee cannot lift heavy objects and unilaterally reassign her to a different position. Because every woman experiences pregnancy differently, it may be that the employee can lift heavy objects. The employer may have transferred her unfairly.
The employer must inquire as to the actual limitations of the individual employee and respond appropriately. Inquiry may simply mean asking the employee what she feels comfortable doing. In other circumstances it may mean asking the employee to seek medical advice. Employers should always be polite and respectful in seeking additional information.
3. Mixed reasons for treatment
Discrimination occurs when an employer treats an employee differently at least in part because of her pregnancy. This means that pregnancy does not have to be the sole reason for differential treatment in order for the employer’s actions to be discriminatory.
For example, a pregnant hotel employee in British Columbia missed a day of work because of an emergency hospital visit. She did not contact her employer to inform them she would be missing work. The employer terminated the employer on the basis that she was unreliable. A Human Rights Tribunal found that because pregnancy was the reason for the emergency hospital visit, it was connected to the reason the employer terminated her.[8]
When pregnancy is involved, an employer should make sure that legitimate reasons for taking action against an employee are the sole justification for the action. When a human rights complaint is evaluated, a Board of Inquiry/Tribunal would consider whether it is more probable than not that the complainant’s pregnancy was at least one factor in the differential treatment. In one recent case, although the employer had legitimate performance concerns, a Tribunal still found that discrimination had occurred because pregnancy was a factor in the employer’s decision to terminate. [9]
4. Duty to accommodate
Not only must employers avoid behaving in a discriminatory manner, but employers have a duty to accommodate pregnant employees. This means adapting the workplace to suit the needs of pregnant women. The extent of this duty is set out in detail in a later section.
Examples of Discriminatory Acts involving Pregnancy
The following are examples of where the courts have found discrimination in the past. As new circumstances will always arise based on individual fact scenarios, this should not be relied upon as an exhaustive list.
Refusal to Hire
An employer has every right to hire the most qualified individual for the job. What an employer does not have the right to do is to refuse to hire an equally qualified or more qualified person because she is pregnant.
If a human rights complaint is filed and referred to a hearing, a Board of Inquiry will look at all of the circumstances of a particular case to decide whether discrimination occurred. This will likely include the qualifications of the successful candidate and the pregnant candidate, the job description, and interview questions and responses from candidates.
Refusal to hire on the basis of pregnancy might occur because of assumptions about availability. For example, a golf course owner in Ontario decided not to hire a pregnant woman for a snack counter position because he assumed that due to her pregnancy she would not be available for the whole season. The employer did not inquire about the candidate’s actual availability and a Board of Inquiry held that the employer’s conduct was discriminatory.[10]
Employers can protect themselves from complaints from prospective employees by providing detailed job descriptions and clearly communicating the required qualifications. It is essential to make hiring decisions solely on the stated qualifications for the position, not on assumptions about limitations or availability.
Even if an employee’s pregnancy does create some difficulties in the work environment, the employer should consider if they are able to work around these hurdles.[11] When a decision is made not to hire someone, the reason for this decision should be clearly communicated to the person.
Termination
It is not acceptable to terminate an employee upon learning that she is pregnant. This is the case regardless of whether the employee disclosed her pregnancy to the employer or whether the employer discovered it independently.
In Newfoundland and Labrador a homecare recipient was found to have discriminated against an employee by terminating her employment on the basis of “concerns about her unborn child.” [12] The job in question involved cooking, cleaning, and lifting and carrying an individual with physical disabilities. A Board of Inquiry found that the employer provided no evidence to establish that the employee’s pregnancy limited her ability to perform her job effectively. In fact, the employee had provided medical evidence to her employer indicating that she was perfectly capable of carrying out her job duties.
This case demonstrates the importance of the principle that a woman is entitled to make her own decision about how she will manage employment with respect to her pregnancy. It is not a decision for the employer except in very extreme circumstances where there are additional safety considerations.[13] In the majority of cases the decision remains that of the employee.
Employers should also be aware that many employees are afraid to disclose pregnancy for fear of retribution by the employer. Employers should encourage openness and assure employees that pregnancy will not jeopardize their positions. Employees should disclose pregnancy as early as possible so that the employer can make any necessary accommodations. If both sides communicate their needs cooperatively and effectively, there is less likely to be conflict.
Terminating while on leave
It is inappropriate to terminate an employee because she takes leave associated with her pregnancy. In British Columbia a woman went on an authorized pregnancy leave and found upon her return to work that her position had been “dissolved” and the employer had hired a less expensive secretary to replace her. A British Columbia Board of Inquiry found that although there was no evidence of a conscious decision to fire the pregnant employee, the evidence as a whole showed that the only cause for her dismissal was that she was away on leave, as the evidence showed there was enough work to maintain her position.[14]
This is not to say that employees who are on maternity leave may not be terminated under any circumstances. There are sometimes legitimate reasons to terminate employees who are on leave. Financial constraints leading to mass layoff is one example. What employers must remember is that they cannot penalize employees because they are on a pregnancy-
related leave. If layoffs are necessary, a person on leave should not be the first person to be let go simply because they are not currently present in the workplace. Layoffs need to done in a way that is procedurally fair to all employees.[15]
In one human rights case in Newfoundland and Labrador, personal preference for a replacement employee was held as a legitimate reason for dismissal of a pregnant employee who was on leave.[16] The employee was a personal caregiver who was replaced temporarily while she was on pregnancy leave. When her leave was over, the caregiver recipient dismissed her and hired her replacement full time, because he found the quality of care of the replacement worker to be higher. The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal held that there was sufficient evidence to show that the decision was not discrimination, but was based on quality of care.
Dismissing an employee while she is on pregnancy leave is risky. Recent decisions have held that Adjudicators are entitled to rely on the timing of termination to support the allegation that pregnancy-related leave was at least one factor in the decision to terminate employment.[17] An important difference between the two examples provided above was the evidence provided by the employer as to the reason for the dismissal. While the B.C. employer was found to have taken advantage of the employee’s absence to reduce costs, which is unacceptable, the N.L. employer had legitimate concerns over quality of performance.
Where there is no credible evidence to the contrary, a Board of Inquiry will assume there was discrimination.[18] Regardless of the circumstances of a particular employment scenario, the Human Rights Commission strongly encourages employers to seek legal advice before terminating, and recommends against terminating employees who are on leave if at all possible.
Failure to Provide Benefits
Pregnancy is considered a “valid health related reason for being absent from work” and of fundamental importance to our society. Although absence from work due to pregnancy is not accident or illness related, pregnant employees are entitled to be covered by any existing employment benefit programs.[19]
If an employer has a health benefit program in place, that program cannot exclude pregnancy benefits. While an employer has the right to exclude unnecessary medical procedures such as plastic surgery, a benefit program cannot be under-inclusive when it comes to prohibited grounds such as sex or disability.
Promotion
Failure to consider an employee for a promotion simply because she is pregnant, or they are on a pregnancy-related leave, is discrimination. Such an oversight might be based on assumptions about limitations or availability, or it may be that the pregnant woman was overlooked because she was on leave at the time the promotion was offered. In either case, this could constitute discrimination.
In one Saskatchewan case, a pregnant woman was overlooked for promotion to a position as assistant head cashier, even though she was more qualified than the person who was offered the position. The employer’s reason for overlooking her was that the employee was expected to be on pregnancy leave at a critical time where the assistant head cashier would need to be present.[20] The Board of Inquiry found that although employers have a right to manage their operations as they see fit, this right cannot extend so far as it infringe human rights. The Board found protections must be put in place so that pregnant women still have the same opportunities as other employees. The employer was obligated to offer the job to the employee despite the fact that she would be unavailable at this critical time.[21]
Breastfeeding
An employer has a duty to accommodate a woman with respect to breastfeeding. In one British Columbia case, an employer was found to have discriminated against a female employee because the employer imposed a ban on children in the workplace, which prevented the employee from breastfeeding her child during breaks at work.[22]
An Alberta Arbitration Board made a ruling of discrimination on the basis of sex where that Board found the employer had denied an employee an extended leave of absence so she could continue to breast-feed her child for medical reasons.[23]
Harassment
Harassment on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination is also forbidden by the Human Rights Act.[24]
A British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal found discrimination in a case where it found the employer’s reaction to an employee’s pregnancy was “negative and angry.” The Tribunal found that prior to the employee’s announcement the relationship had been one of trust. After the announcement the relationship deteriorated: the employer was verbally abusive, did not include the employee in integral business meetings, and spoke negatively of the employee to her coworkers. This was found to constitute discrimination.[25] While in this case the complaint was brought forward as discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and family status, on the facts it could also have been framed as a complaint of harassment on the basis of sex (pregnancy).
The Duty to Accommodate
Employer obligations go beyond avoiding specific discriminatory acts. Employers must implement sound workplace policies that afford accommodation. This means that employers must make bona fide attempts to adapt the workplace and/or duties so that pregnant women can retain their positions.
As every woman experiences pregnancy differently, the form of accommodation adopted must be suitable to the individual’s circumstances. When an employee is pregnant, the employer must investigate what kind of accommodations might suit the individual’s needs. This might include transferring an employee to a different shift schedule when requested, altering the employee’s duties, or paid leave.
Accommodation may ultimately prove impossible, but all options must be seriously considered and weighed before a determination is made that accommodation is not possible. The accommodation measure that is adopted should be the one that affects the employee’s position in the workplace the least.
Changing shifts
The Department of National Revenue was held to have discriminated against an employee when it failed to accommodate her need for a change from rotating shifts to straight day shifts. The employee in this case had been advised by her doctor to avoid rotating shifts as it could result in pregnancy complications. Upon providing this information to her employer, the employee’s request for accommodation was denied. The Tribunal found that, based on the evidence, it would have been feasible for the company to accommodate her without suffering any great loss and ruled the employer’s conduct discriminatory.[26]
It is important for employers to remain flexible; just because things have been done a certain way in the past does not mean that they can/should be done that way in the future.
Forced unpaid leave
Pregnant women are not ill and in the vast majority of cases, are willing and able to continue working throughout their pregnancy. Accordingly, an employer should not force a pregnant employee to take an unpaid leave of absence. In most cases, the employee can still perform the tasks of her regular position. Where this is not the case, the employer has an obligation to investigate whether there is alternative work available that is more suitable.
For example, in one Ontario case a pregnant police officer was no longer able to perform her patrol duties. Her pregnancy made the patrol duty unsafe, and she was unable to wear the gun belt and uniform. To resolve the situation, the employer gave her an unpaid leave of absence. The terms of her contract did not allow her to seek alternative employment and she was left in a financially precarious position.[27] An Ontario Board of Inquiry found that the employer should have looked into alternative positions, and further found that there was an alternative position available, because evidence presented to the Board showed the employee could have worked part time as a replacement typist.[28]
In another recent case, after informing her employer about her pregnancy, a security company employee was told she would be removed from the shift schedule. Her employer directed her to seek a letter from her physician stating that she was unsafe to work in her current position. The employer advised that the doctor’s note would allow her to receive short term disability payments to replace her income, which did not turn out to be the case.
The employer refused to reconsider the decision to take her off the schedule. The employee, having been placed in a precarious financial situation as a result of the employer’s decision, began to look for other work. She worked briefly for another security company prior to giving birth. When her original employer became aware that she worked for a competitor, they terminated her employment. The Tribunal found that the complainant had neither requested nor required accommodation and therefore her employer was not justified in forcing accommodations upon her. The Tribunal ordered $20,000 as compensation for injury to dignity and self-respect, and also ordered the employer to pay the employee for lost income.[29]
Safety concerns
When an employee requests reassignment on the basis of her pregnancy, an employer must be careful to respect the employee’s autonomy. It is the woman’s right to decide how to handle her pregnancy and what kinds of risks she is willing to take. Only in extreme cases where there is overwhelming medical evidence as to the risks associated with a certain task will the employer have the unilateral right to limit an employee’s duties.
For example, an employee assigned to a spray painting position requested to be transferred to another area of the building (the packing department) during her pregnancy to avoid fetal exposure to fumes. She provided a note from her doctor indicating this was an appropriate accommodation. The employer refused to transfer her to another area of the building, saying that there was no guarantee there would not be some fumes in this area as well. The employer instead put her on involuntary leave, thus ignoring the recommendation of the employee’s physician.[30] The Court, upholding the decision of a Board of Inquiry, found the behaviour of the employer to be inappropriate and patronizing. There was no medical evidence that a position in another area of the building would be dangerous for the fetus.
The employer was obligated to honour the employee’s request for accommodation in light of the medical evidence.[32]
Undue Hardship
How far does the employer’s duty extend?
It is clear that an employer must investigate possible alternative positions and alter the work environment to accommodate a pregnant woman, but how far does this duty to adapt the work environment extend? At what point can an employer say that accommodation is impossible?
The courts say that this point is reached when accommodation would inflict undue hardship on the employer.
Undue hardship is reached when accommodation would require such substantial changes to the work environment that the employer’s enterprise would no longer be feasible. For example, accommodation might infringe too far on the rights of other employees or may require a degree of workplace rearrangement that is unreasonable.32
This means that the employer will be expected to absorb some additional costs. For example, accommodation may mean temporarily transferring a pregnant employee to a different position. After such a transfer, the employer should maintain the employee’s regular level of pay even if the temporary position would normally be on a lower pay scale.
Employers should keep in mind that accommodation of pregnancy only requires temporary changes to the workplace. Given its temporary nature, accommodation in this context is unlikely to meet the threshold of undue hardship except in very specific circumstances. Cost of replacement during pregnancy leave is also unlikely to meet this threshold except in very specific circumstances.[33]
Duty of Employee to Cooperate
The employer does not enter into accommodation alone. Accommodation is intended to operate as a dialogue whereby both the employee and the employer attempt to find a workable solution for both parties.
Entitlement to equity in the workplace does not translate to entitlement to special treatment. Employers must be able to run their enterprise efficiently and this means compromise on part of the employee as well. Where there are multiple options for accommodation, and an employer suggests one reasonable accommodation, the employee is obliged to accept it, even if it is not the accommodation the employee would have preferred.[34]
For example, a pregnant paramedic in Ontario requested a number of accommodation measures. As was the norm in her profession, she sought relief from active duty to avoid heavy lifting and medical exposure to her fetus. She also requested that she continue to work in a 12 hour rotating shift, because that schedule made it easier to manage her family life.[35]
The employer transferred her off active duty, but offered her an 8.4 hour per day shift as opposed to a 12 hour rotating shift, with the same number of hours worked across a two week period. She refused and took the matter to arbitration.
An arbitrator found that the paramedic was unreasonable in refusing to accept the accommodation. Although the 12 hour rotating shift had been available to pregnant employees in the past, this did not mean the employee was automatically entitled to it. The 8.4 hour per day shift away from active duty was a reasonable accommodation measure, as she did not lose any hours and her pay was maintained.[36]
Good Faith Occupational Qualification
When is it reasonable for an employer to discriminate?
Human rights legislation does allow employers to discriminate in certain circumstances. Sometimes the application of a general workplace rule is necessary for a workplace to function, despite how it affects a particular individual. Other times individuals must be singled out for safety considerations. For an employer to legitimately discriminate, he or she must establish that the rule or standard in place is a good faith occupational qualification (in some provinces this is called a bona fide occupational requirement). This essentially means proving that the standard is necessary for the position.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, to be a good faith/bona fide occupational qualification a standard must meet three criteria.[38]
It must:
- Achieve a purpose that is rationally connected to the work;
- For example, safety
- Be imposed in good faith. The employer must honestly believe the standard is
necessary to achieve this purpose;- To show good faith an employer should consider conducting research and consulting with experts and employees before imposing a standard
- Be reasonably necessary to achieve this purpose;
- To meet this requirement an employer must go beyond showing the standard is reasonably necessary for most
- Employer must additionally show that they cannot accommodate a particular pregnant employee without suffering undue hardship
- This requirement is the most difficult to establish as the duty to accommodate is onerous.
“Reasonably necessary” means that the standard cannot be:
- Arbitrary: in that it is not linked or does not further the employer’s purpose;
- Too broad or stricter than necessary to achieve the purpose;
- Unnecessary: where other less intrusive means might achieve the same objective.
- So rigid or inflexible so as not to accommodate individual circumstances.
Discrimination will very rarely be acceptable in the context of pregnancy because accommodation will not usually result in undue hardship, since the accommodation will be temporary.
Examples of Acceptable and Temporary Discrimination
Uniforms
The requirement to wear a particular uniform may adversely affect a pregnant employee if there is no maternity garment available. An employer does not have the right to require the employee to take leave until she can fit into a uniform. The employer will be obliged to compromise: for example, the employer will need to either invest in a maternity uniform, or ask the employee to wear a larger sized shirt while allowing her to purchase her own pants in a similar colour to the uniform. Therefore, refusing to deviate from a particular uniform is not likely to be considered a good faith occupational qualification. If there are safety issues associated with a particular uniform, the analysis is obviously a more complicated one.
Customer Preference
Courts and tribunals have held that “customer preference” is not a bona fide occupational requirement. A strip club owner in Ontario dismissed a waitress when she became pregnant, claiming the customers preferred younger, thinner women. The employer did not provide any evidence that the pregnant waitress could not perform the functions of her job adequately. An Ontario Board of Inquiry held that customer preference could not be used to justify a discriminatory act.38
This is only the case, however, if the reason for dismissal is the pregnancy or another enumerated ground of discrimination. Recall that the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal found no discrimination where an employee on pregnancy leave was terminated because her employer received higher quality of care from a replacement worker.[40] In that case the distinction between the pregnant and non-pregnant employee was ‘ability to perform the job,’ not preference for a non-pregnant woman.
Physically demanding position
Sometimes the physical demands of a position make it untenable for a pregnant woman. A Saskatchewan Board of Inquiry found an offer of employment in a kitchen restaurant was justifiably revoked because the position involved physically demanding labour, and the potential employee was 5.5 months pregnant.40 It is important to note that this was an offer of a specific position, and the woman was not already an existing employee. The physical demands would also have to be essential to the position in question. Employers should be cautious and seek legal advice where possible.
Conclusion
Compliance with human rights legislation requires effective communication, cooperation, and flexibility between employers and employees. The most important things for an employer to remember are to refrain from making assumptions about a pregnant employee’s capabilities, to be sensitive, and to focus on actual job requirements and limitations of the individual employee. It is wise to have policies in place, as this can avoid inappropriate behavior, but policies should retain the capacity to remain flexible to individual circumstances. The Human Rights Commission advocates for employers to seek legal advice specific to their individual circumstances.
Relevant Provisions, Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Act
Prohibited grounds
s.9 (1) For the purpose of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, colour, nationality, ethnic origin, social origin, religious creed, age, disability, disfigurement, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, source of income and political opinion.
s.9 (2) Where this Act protects an individual from discrimination on the basis of sex, the protection includes the protection of a female from discrimination on the basis that she is or may become pregnant
Discrimination in employment
s.14 (1) An employer, or a person acting on behalf of an employer, shall not refuse to employ or to continue to employ or otherwise discriminate against a person in regard to employment or a term or condition of employment on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination…
s.14 (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the expression of a limitation, specification or preference based on a good faith occupational qualification.[41]
1 Brooks v. Safeway Canada (1989), 1 S.C.R. 1219.
2 These guidelines address human rights issues only, and do not provide information about labour standards for pregnancy leave – for more information on this topic, please call the Government of NL Labour Relations Agency, or go to their website at https://www.gov.nl.ca/lrb/.
3 The prohibited grounds inclusive are: race, colour, nationality, ethnic origin, social origin, religious creed, religion, age, disability, disfigurement, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, source of income and political opinion. See: Human Rights Act, S.N.L 2010, c. H-13, s. 9(1).
4 See Human Rights Act, S.N.L 2010, c. H-13.
5 Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General) (1979), 1 S.C.R. 183.
6 Brooks v. Safeway Canada (1989), 1 S.C.R. 1219 at p. 22.
7 See s.9(2) of the Human Rights Act: “where this Act protects an individual from discrimination on the basis of sex, this protection includes the protection of a female from discrimination on the basis that she is or may become pregnant”
8 Sutton v. Best Western Tower Inn (no. 2) (2010), C.H.R.R. Doc.10-1734, 2010 BCHRT 314.
9 Guay v. 1481979 Ontario Inc. (No. 3) (2010), C.H.R.R. Doc. 10-2213, 2010 HRTO 1563.
10 Jenner v. Pointe West Development Corp. (1993), 21 C.H.R.R. D/336 (Ont. Bd. Inq.).
11 As an employer you have a duty to work around pregnancy so long as it does not result in “undue hardship.” See the section: “undue hardship.”
12 Tulk v. Newfoundland (Ministry of Health and Community Services) (2001), 39 C.H.R.R. D/414 (Nfld. Bd. Inq.), aff’d (2002), 42 C.H.R.R. D/225 (Nfld. S.C.).
13 Some examples of such extreme situations are discussed in the section Good Faith Occupational Qualification.
14 Paton v. Brouwer and co. (1984), 5 C.H.R.R. D/1946 (B.C. Bd. Inq.).
15 Parry v. Vanwest College Ltd. (2005), 53 C.H.R.R. D/178 (B.C.H.R.T.).
16 McEvoy v. Best of Care Ltd., 2009 NLCA 9.
17 Su v. Coniston Products (No.2), 2011 BCHRT 2223 (B.C.H.R.T.).
18 Magee v. Warner Lambert Can. In. (1990), 12 C.H.R.R. D/208 (B.C. Human Rights Council).
19 Brooks v. Safeway Canada (1989), 1 S.C.R. 1219.
20 Wormsbecker v. Supervalu and Westfair Foods Ltd. (1981), 2 C.H.R.R. D/348 (Sask. Bd. Inq.).
22 Poirier v. British Columbia (Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing)(1997), 29 C.H.R.R. D/87 (B.C.H.R.T.).
23 Carewest v. H.S.A.A. (2001), 93 L.A.C. (4th) 129, 2001 CarswellAlta 1938 (Al. Arb. Bd.).
24 Human Rights Act, S.N.L 2010, c. H-13, s.17.
[25 Brown v. PML Professional Mechanical Ltd. (No. 4), (2010), C.H.R.R. Doc. 10-0646, 2010 BCHRT 93.
26 Brown v. M.N.R., Customs and Excise (1993), 19 C.H.R.R. D/39 (C.H.R.T.).
27 Pattison v. Fort Frances (Town) Commissioners of Police (1987), 8 C.H.R.R. D/3884 (Ont. Bd. Inq.).
29 Graham v. 3022366 Canada Inc. 2011 HRTO 1470 (H.R.T.O.).
30 Emrick Plastics v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) (1992), 16 C.H.R.R. D/300 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.).
32 Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud [1992], 2 S.C.R. 970.
33 Davies v. Century Oils (Can.) Inc. (1986), 8 C.H.R.R. D/3770.
34 Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud [1992], 2 S.C.R. 970.
35 Ottawa-Carleton Public Employees’ Union, Local 503 v. Ottawa (City), [2010] L.V.I. 3908-1, 196 L.A.C. (4th) 322 (On. Arb. Bd.).
37 British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3
38 Middleton v. 491456 Ontario Ltd (1991), 15 C.H.R.R. D/317.
40 Mack v. Marivtsan (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. D/5892 (Sask. Bd. Of Inquiry).