Central Alberta Dairy Pool V. Alberta (Human Rights Commission) - Opinion of The Court

Opinion of The Court

Justice Wilson, writing for the majority, held that there was no bonafide occupational requirement for Monday attendance and that the Dairy farm did not accommodate to the point of undue hardship.

Wilson described the situation of one of adverse effect discrimination, which she defines as "a rule that is neutral on its face but has an adverse effect on certain members of the group to whom it applies". Monday attendance, she found, was an isolated incident and there was no evidence that it would be a recurring event. Thus, it was not a bonafide occupational requirement.

She then considered whether the Dairy farm accommodated Christie to the point of undue hardship. She observed that it was not necessary to provide a comprehensive definition of undue hardship and instead gave a list of factors.

1. financial costs of accommodation
2. disruption of the collective agreement
3. problems of morale of other employees
4. interchangeability of work force and facilities
5. size of the employer's operation (which may also influence the other factors such as whether the financial cost is undue or the difficulty in adapting the work force or facilities to accommodate individuals)
6. safety concerns