First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll, HR & Employment Law

decorative image

Author Archive - Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services

Kevin Sambrano, B.A.A. is a paralegal who is passionate about law. Kevin has the distinction of being the first paralegal candidate to participate in the Community Legal Aid Services Programme at Osgoode Hall Law School. Sambrano Legal offers legal representation in human rights, landlord and tenant, employment, and Small Claims Court matters within the GTA. Kevin has been a regular contributor to First Reference Talks since 2014 with over 44 published articles relating to human rights and employment law. Read more

The double “financial” jeopardy of HRTO damages against the employer

An employer named in a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Application, if decided against, may be responsible for both wage loss and most likely general damages.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HRTO confirms co-op student’s right to pursue interests

Co-op students may be covered by the “Code”, and should be afforded the same inalienable rights as all other employees during a potential interview or  co-op placement.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario: the “Code” matters, not social norms

Although there may be social norms at play, a business owner would do well to continue to update and implement workplace and human rights policies on an ongoing basis, otherwise, they may be liable for any breach of the “Code”, whether intended or otherwise.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No reason given for refusal of HRTO request to expedite, no reasons required

In this matter, the Request to Expedite was dismissed through a letter from the Registrar. In the interim decision, the Tribunal further explained that in matters dealing with process, there are no grounds for reconsideration, as only final orders may be reconsidered.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abrams v. Kupar: Pregnancy not a factor in short-term employee’s termination

In the matter of Abrams v. Kupar, the applicant, who was pregnant at the time, was terminated from a new job. The applicant believed it was due to the fact that she was pregnant. The respondent alleged that the termination had nothing to do with her pregnancy, but rather that the employee was not suited for the job. The matter was heard at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The Tribunal’s decision was in favour of the respondent.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HRTO issues rare interim order based on family status

As common as an interim order or decision may be, it is uncommon that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario may issue an order that institutes compliance on the part of the respondent prior to the conclusion of the matter. Such was the case Tomlinson v. Runnymede Healthcare Centre.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recent decision upholds reasonable prospect criteria

The Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness, as the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is exclusive to issues of human rights and discrimination. In order for an application to be successful, the applicant must establish a connection between one or more of the protected grounds and behaviour on the part of the respondent.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pregnancy and the burden of proof: Grudonic v. Ray Daniel Salon & Spa

In an application under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the burden of proof lies with the applicant. Once the applicant has established a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden then shifts to the respondent to justify their conduct.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sloan v. Just Energy Corporation: Pregnancy and fairness under the Code

The Code protects employees from discrimination based on various protected grounds. One of the more difficult of these may be pregnancy, as often the question becomes not whether or not the applicant was pregnant, but rather when the employer became aware of the pregnancy, and whether or not the pregnancy was a factor in the employee’s termination.

 

, , , , , , , , , ,

E.T. v. Dress Code Express Inc., the “Code” as applied to minors

The Ontario Human Rights Code is extensive in its efforts to protect persons within Ontario, and may apply to minors in the workforce. Regardless of the age of the employee, chances are they are covered by the “Code,” and their rights may be enforced if not by the employee, then by a litigation guardian. Age as well as the other protected grounds, is not an excuse or invitation for abuse.

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Marijuana use remains cloudy

Canada legalizes marijuana

As laws regarding marijuana continue to evolve, even now employers are faced with ongoing legal questions concerning medical marijuana use in the workplace.

 

, , , , , , , , ,

The “G” word: Brooks v. Total Credit Recovery Limited

Brooks v. Total Credit Recovery Limited, a decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario examined words, their etymology, and their impact in the workplace.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Vexatious litigants and abuse of process at Tribunal

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has the authority to govern its own proceedings. Within this authority is the power to declare any applicant a vexatious litigant and to identity any abuse of process, either of which may result in the dismissal of an Application. The recent interim decision addresses both of these issues.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Family status: The employee’s obligation under “the Code”

The recent decision of Misetich v. Value Village Stores Inc. reaffirms that family status accommodation under the Human Rights Code is a joint obligation, involving both the employee and employer.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Disability and termination under the Human Rights Code

Under the Ontario’s Human Rights Code (the Code), an employee cannot be terminated due to a disability. If the Human Rights Tribunal finds that the termination was based in part or in whole on a disability, this may be considered a breach of the Code. The matter was addressed in one of the first Tribunal decisions of 2017, Ben Saad v. 1544982 Ontario Inc.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Previous Posts