The Union argues that the arbitrator did not analyze the evidence relating to hardship according to the factors discussed in the cases: see e.g. Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970 at 984. I do not agree with this argument. Hardship and reasonable measures are factual matters which vary with the case. As Sopinka J. said in Central Okanagan, supra: The extent to which the discriminator must go to accommodate is limited by the words "reasonable" and "short of undue hardship". These are not independent criteria but are alternate ways of expressing the same concept. What constitutes reasonable measures is a question of fact and will vary with the circumstances of the case.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.