British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government Service Employees' Union
Supreme Court of Canada case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government Service Employees' Union?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government Service Employees' Union [1999] 3 SCR 3, 1999 SCC 48 – called Meiorin for short – is a Supreme Court of Canada case that created a unified test to determine if a violation of human rights legislation can be justified as a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR).
Quick Facts British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government Service Employees' Union, Hearing: February 22, 1999 Judgment: September 9, 1999 ...
British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government Service Employees' Union | |
---|---|
Hearing: February 22, 1999 Judgment: September 9, 1999 | |
Full case name | The British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union v. The Government of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Public Service Employee Relations Commission |
Citations | [1999] 3 SCR 3; (1999), 176 DLR (4th) 1; [1999] 10 WWR 1; (1999), 35 CHRR 257; (1999), 46 CCEL (2d) 206; (1999), 68 CRR (2d) 1; (1999), 66 BCLR (3d) 253 |
Docket No. | 26274 [1] |
Prior history | Judgment for the Public Service Employee Relations Commission in the British Columbia Court of Appeal. |
Ruling | Appeal allowed |
Holding | |
There is a three-step process for determining if an employer can establish that a discriminatory standard is an occupational requirement: (1) The standard must be rationally connected to performance of the job, (2) The employer adopted the standard in an honest and good-faith manner, and (3) The standard is reasonably necessary to accomplish the legitimate work-related purpose. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie | |
Reasons given | |
Unanimous reasons by | McLachlin J. |
Close