104 | Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal Thus the CRPD provision compels the employer to adjust the work environment to ensure the inclusion of PWDs,42 at the work place for example. Nevertheless, the duty bearer of the right can show that the requested modifications cause undue burden, and will not be bound to provide such accommodation. In the Canadian case of Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta43 the Supreme Court listed criteria for consideration in identifying whether the provision of accommodation would create undue burden. These criteria include: (a) Financial costs; (b) Impact on collective bargaining agreements; (c) Disruption of service to the public; (d) Effects on employee morale; (e) Interchangeability of workforce and facilities; (f) Size of the employer’s operations; (g) Safety; (h) Overall economic climate; and (i) Financial resources required for the accommodation The inviolability of reasonable accommodation was further strengthened through another Canadian case, Eldridge v British Columbia44 where the Supreme Court held that the right to disability non-discrimination (under the Canadian Charter of Fundamental Rights) is not only a negative right but also a positive right that compels the state to take positive measures to ensure that PWDs enjoy rights as all other members of the society. In clarifying its position, the court held as follows: “The principle that discrimination can accrue from a failure to take positive steps to ensure that disadvantaged groups benefit equally from services offered to the general public is widely accepted in the human rights field. It is also a cornerstone of human rights jurisprudence that the duty to Benefit?’ Canadian Bar Review Volume 75:433-473. 42 CRPD, Article 2. 43 The Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta [1990] 2 SCR 489. 44 Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General) [1997] 3 SCR 624.