A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice touches upon a little discussed area of employment law. Specifically, when does the limitation period clock start running for a claim of wrongful dismissal?
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: a matter that looks at just cause for dismissal; a claim of discrimination in relation to cessation of benefits upon turning the age 65; and claims that address bonus payments on termination.
An employer is not explicitly required to investigate a discrimination complaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code and, in 2013, the Ontario Divisional Court concluded there is no freestanding duty to investigate.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with the first international standard on cloud services and personal information protection; age discrimination; and, unfunded LTD plan payment.
The number of workers over the age of 65 has significantly increased in recent years, and a survey by Towers Watson found that one-third of all respondents and 42 percent of older workers have decided to delay retirement. This aging workforce demographic means that not only are there more older workers remaining in their employment, but also that there are many older workers seeking new employment.
This human rights case demonstrates the importance of preparing and maintaining proper documentation when interviewing job applicants for a position with the employer. In fact, the notes of the hiring manager in this case highlighted the fact that there were other reasons for not hiring a job applicant—and those notes likely prevented the employer’s liability.
While many employers in Canada understand that they have obligations under human rights legislation, they likely do not appreciate that they can also be liable if a consultant contracted to provide services on their behalf engages in discriminatory action. This is what occurred in Ontario in the recent case of Reiss v CCH Canadian Limited, 2013 HRTO 764.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with the difficulty of characterizing the employment relationship as that of independent contractor, the taxability of employer-paid membership fees and the high price of age discrimination.
Since Ontario eliminated mandatory retirement back in 2006, age has become one of the most often cited ground for discrimination in human rights case law. In Zholudev v. EMC Corporation of Canada, 2012 HRTO 626, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal scrutinized an employee’s allegations of age discrimination in the context of the employer’s promotion and termination practices.
A recent decision by the Federal Court of Appeal has upheld the mandatory retirement practice for Air Canada pilots. This decision overturns earlier findings by the Federal Court of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that contractual provisions forcing Air Canada pilots to retire at 60 violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.
As you may recall, Air Canada pilots launched human rights complaints on the ground of age discrimination because the company forced them to retire at age 60. In a history of decisions spanning back to 2007 challenging the Air Canada policy that requires pilots to retire at the age of 60, which section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act purports to allow, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recently made two more decisions. One involved…
When mandatory retirement was eliminated, I noted that this change might create some interesting HR issues for employers of older workers. In the past, employers were often in a position to tolerate declining performance, comfortable in the knowledge that the employment relationship had a fixed “end date.” As a result, they could allow the employee to work out their last few years and retire with dignity.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench recently challenged the Human Rights Commission’s decision to dismiss an employee’s discrimination complaint based on age as without merit. The employer denies discriminating against the employee on the basis of his age, and maintains that the employee was terminated for poor performance.