What is the test for adverse effect discrimination?

With respect to adverse effect discrimination, the petitioner says that where the finder of fact accepts a prima facie case of discrimination then to defend the allegation, the respondent is required to show that it has accommodated the complainant up to the point of undue hardship. As Madam Justice Wilson said in Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission) (1990), 1990 CanLII 76 (SCC), 72 D.L.R. (4th) 417 at 438-439 (S.C.C.): Was the rule rationally connected to the performance of the job, and if so, did the respondent employer accommodate the employee up to the point of undue hardship. ...I do not find it necessary to provide a complete definition of what constitutes undue hardship, but I believe it may be helpful to list some of the factors that may be relevant to such an appraisal. I begin by adopting those identified by the board of inquiry in the case at bar -- financial cost, disruption of a collective agreement, problems of morale of other employees, interchangeability of work force and facilities. The size of the employer's operation may influence the assessment of whether a given financial cost is undue or the ease with which the work force and facilities can be adapted to the circumstances. Where safety is at issue both the magnitude of the risk and the identity of those who bear it are relevant considerations. This list is not intended to be exhaustive and the results which will obtain from a balancing of these factors against the right of an employee to be free from discrimination will necessarily vary from case to case.