翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Ontario general election, 2003 ・ Ontario general election, 2007 ・ Ontario general election, 2011 ・ Ontario general election, 2014 ・ Ontario Genomics Institute ・ Ontario Geological Survey ・ Ontario Global Edge Program ・ Ontario Good Roads Association ・ Ontario Government Buildings ・ Ontario (AG) v Canada Temperance Federation ・ Ontario (Amtrak station) ・ Ontario (CDP), New York ・ Ontario (computer virus) ・ Ontario (disambiguation) ・ Ontario (electoral district) ・ Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Etobicoke (Borough of) ・ Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd ・ Ontario (Old Order) Mennonite Conference ・ Ontario (provincial electoral district) ・ Ontario Academic Credit ・ Ontario Access Coalition ・ Ontario Agricorp ・ Ontario Agricultural College ・ Ontario Air National Guard Station ・ Ontario Alliance of Christian Schools ・ Ontario Amateur Softball Association ・ Ontario and Livingston Mutual Insurance Office ・ Ontario and Pacific Junction Railway ・ Ontario and Quebec Railway ・ Ontario and Rainy River Railway Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Etobicoke (Borough of) ： ウィキペディア英語版 Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Etobicoke (Borough of) ''Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Etobicoke (Borough of)'', () 1 S.C.R. 202 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on age discrimination. Several firemen challenged a mandatory retirement policy under the ''Ontario Human Rights Code''. The Court found that the employer did not sufficiently justify the policy as a ''bona fide'' occupational requirement. ==Background== Harold Hall and Vincent Gray were firemen in the borough of Etobicoke, Ontario. As part of the collective agreement between the borough and the union, all firefighters were required to retire at the age of 60. When Hall and Grey were forced to retire they brought a complaint for age discrimination under section 4(1) of the ''Ontario Human Rights Code'' which prohibited discrimination in recruitment or dismissal based on age among other grounds. The respondents defended their actions by arguing that the rule was a ''bona fide'' occupational requirement (BFOR). Namely, that the rule was required to maintain an acceptable standard for firefighting. In the Ontario Divisional Court, it was held that the policy was a BFOR and so did not violate section 4(1) of the Code. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Etobicoke (Borough of)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.