In this case, an employer wrongfully dismisses a female employee who fails to meet a newly imposed aerobic standard. The Supreme Court of Canada establishes the Meiorin three-part test for bona fide occupational requirements to determine that the aerobic standard is discriminatory against women and does not constitute a B.F.O.R. This test becomes key in interpreting the duty to accommodate in all instances.
In the Grismer case a service provider wrongfully denies a drivers license to a man with a disability who fails a generic visual acuity test. The Supreme Court of Canada interprets the Meiorin 3-part test to include the duty to test persons with disabilities
In the L.B. (committee of) case, an employer rightfully dismisses an employee with a mental disability who fails to provide medical documentation upon request. A Human Rights Commission interprets the Meiorin three-part test to establish the duty of employees to facilitate the accommodation process.
In the Desormeaux case, an employer rejects a medical assessment and wrongfully fires a chronically absent employee with a disability. The Human Rights Tribunal establishes the legitimacy of the assessment and denounces the failure of the employer to accommodate the employee to the point of undue hardship.
In the Berg case, a university denies a key and an evaluation sheet to a depressed student with a history of erratic behaviour. The Supreme Court of Canada rules that universities are service providers; that keys and evaluations are services customarily offered to students; and that they must therefore provide, without discrimination, those same services to students with disabilities.
In the Howard case, a university refuses to pay $40, 000 a year to accommodate a student with a hearing disability who has exhausted all sources of external funding. The B.C. Human Rights Council rules that given the size of the university, a cost of $40, 000 a year does not constitute undue hardship.
In the Meikle case, an employer refuses to accommodate a teacher with a disability, who is eventually forced to resign. A U.K. Court of Appeal, establishes that this act of constructive dismissal is discriminatory and orders the employer to compensate the employee for lost benefits and wages. This U.K. decision is analogous to Canadian Human Rights precedents.