| 000 | 00000nam##2200000za#4500 |
| 001 | 9.662371 |
|---|
| 003 | CaOODSP |
|---|
| 005 | 20210615120520 |
|---|
| 007 | ta |
|---|
| 008 | 150407|2000||||xxc||||| f|0| 0 eng|d |
|---|
| 020 | |a0-662-65379-3 |
|---|
| 040 | |aCaOODSP|beng |
|---|
| 041 | |aeng |
|---|
| 041 | |afre |
|---|
| 043 | |an-cn--- |
|---|
| 086 | 1 |aHR21-53/2000 |
|---|
| 110 | 2 |aCanadian Human Rights Commission. |
|---|
| 245 | 10|aBona fide occupational requirements and bona fide justifications under the Canadian Human Rights Act : |bthe implications of Meiorin and Grismer |
|---|
| 260 | |aOttawa - Ontario : |bCanadian Human Rights Commission |c2000. |
|---|
| 300 | |aEnglish text, 11p. ; |c28 cm. |
|---|
| 500 | |a"...In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada decided two important cases, which have major implications for employers and service providers when relying on a BFOR (bona fide occupational requirement) or BFJ (bona fide justification) defence. The decisions reinforce the duty to accommodate individuals who cannot meet an employment or service-delivery standard for reasons such as disability, sex, family status, or religion."--Preface. |
|---|
| 520 | 3 |a...In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada decided two important cases, which have major implications for employers and service providers when relying on a BFOR (bona fide occupational requirement) or BFJ (bona fide justification) defence. The decisions reinforce the duty to accommodate individuals who cannot meet an employment or service-delivery standard for reasons such as disability, sex, family status, or religion.--Preface |
|---|
| 546 | |aBilingual |
|---|
| 563 | |aSoftcover |
|---|
| 590 | |a01-09|b2001-03-02 |
|---|
| 690 | 07|aHuman rights|2gcpds |
|---|
| 690 | 07|aDiscrimination|2gcpds |
|---|
| 690 | 07|aCourt decisions|2gcpds |
|---|
| 792 | |tExigences professionnelles justifiées et motifs justifiables dans la Loi canadienne des droits de la personne : |efre|w(CaOODSP)9.662372 |
|---|