I learned a new way of looking at policies recently. The standard ways that you do things at your workplace, how you treat and manage your employees, your day-to-day practices—these are your HR policies and procedures, regardless of whether you’ve written them down or not.
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.
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: whether an amount paid to a taxpayer on retirement qualifies as a retiring allowance; whether criminal charges alone for off-duty conduct is enough for just cause dismissal; when moral damages are to be awarded in a wrongful dismissal case.
In March, a discussion was posted with respect to how workplace political expression could go awry with human rights law. The article also provided some best practices on how human resources professionals and employers can appropriately address human rights complaints specifically on the basis of political belief, activity or association. This following discussion, “Part 2”, addresses how workplace political expression could also contravene harassment provisions under occupational health and safety legislation.
Good Friday, observed on April 14 this year, is a statutory holiday recognized across Canada. Also, Easter Sunday, observed on April 16 this year, is a retail holiday in some provinces and territories. Regarding Easter Monday, the Federal Government, as well as certain federally regulated workplaces, recognize the day as a statutory holiday. Although, this may not necessarily be the circumstance for the provinces and territories.
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: Budget 2017’s proposed changes to maternity and parental leave; Bill 168 and compliance regarding violence provisions under OHSA; and employee sexual harassment and reprisal.
This blog discusses a case where a trial judge awarded an employee $100,000 general damages because the employer committed, among other things, the tort of harassment.
On March 15, 2017, Bill 51, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, received first reading in the New Brunswick legislature, and second reading the next day. The goal of the changes is to modernize the legislation and increase its efficiency. Indeed, this has been the first extensive review of the legislation in 25 years. These changes come on the 50th anniversary of the Human Rights Act. The ultimate goal of the review was to evolve with society and ensure that values are protected. Bill 51 aims to do just this.
A recent decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal serves as a useful reminder of the utility of a reasonable settlement offer, which can result in the Tribunal putting an end to complaint proceedings without a hearing.
On March 21, 2017, at a breakout session during a convention on the topic of Canada legalizing marijuana, a spokesperson for the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board says employers should have policies in place before Canada legalizes marijuana, because it could affect safety on the job.
In addition to examining this statement by Saskatchewan WCB, this article also discusses if medical marijuana is a covered medical expense under workers’ compensation.
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: An employee who was dismissed for not submitting a doctor’s note in a timely fashion; a firefighter who was reinstated after being dismissed for sexually harassing a co–worker; and human rights claims, made by a former employee, that were barred by terms of a final release received on termination.
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.
The relationship between employee alcohol use and work is complex. In Ontario, there are specific legal obligations which apply, and employers must exercise caution. Without a proper understanding of their legal obligations, employers face a minefield which may unwittingly result in unwanted liability.