In a tragic car accident Bob lost one of his legs when he was only fifteen. After extensive physical therapy, Bob was able to get around remarkably well. Everyone was very proud of him. Since he was five Bob had wanted to be a police officer Everything he did in his life was done to prepare him to become a police oflicer. He worked hard and did well in school, and was very physically fit. He went to university and carned a degree in criminology. When he turned twenty-two , he applied to the police training program at the college. The college said he did not qualify to enter the program because he had only one leg. Bob was upset and said that his rights under the Charter had been violated. Do you think Bob is correct? Tell why. __ hundred

Bob is likely correct that his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (assuming this refers to the Canadian Charter) have been violated. Specifically, his right to equality under section 15 may have been infringed.<br /><br />Section 15 guarantees equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law without discrimination based on various grounds, including physical disability. Denying Bob entry solely because he has one leg appears to be discrimination based on his disability.<br /><br />However, the police college could argue their decision is justified under section 1 of the Charter. Section 1 allows reasonable limits on Charter rights if those limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. They would need to show that having two legs is a *bona fide occupational requirement* (BFOR). This means they would have to prove that having two legs is essential to performing the job of a police officer and that accommodating Bob would impose undue hardship on them.<br /><br />Given advancements in prosthetics and adaptive technologies, and the diverse roles within policing, it would be difficult for the college to prove that having two legs is absolutely essential for all policing duties. They would need to demonstrate a rational connection between the requirement and the job, that they adopted the requirement in good faith, and that it is reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate work-related purpose. They would also have to show that accommodating Bob, perhaps by assigning him to duties not requiring strenuous physical activity, would create undue hardship. This is a high bar to clear.<br /><br />Therefore, while the college can argue a BFOR defence, Bob has a strong case that his Charter rights have been violated. The onus would be on the college to prove that their requirement is a justifiable limit on his equality rights.<br />