First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll, HR & Employment Law

decorative image

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Is an employer’s duty to accommodate becoming too much?

After a recent Federal Court of Appeal ruling, employers are now faced with the responsibility of accommodating employee requests relating to childcare – providing it does not cause the employer undue hardship. This is the first time a ruling seems to clarify what employers’ obligations are when it comes to accommodation based on family status under human rights legislation. But is this too much for employers?

 

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

Three of the most popular articles this week on HRinfodesk

Three of the most popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with three accommodation on the ground of disability.cases badly handled by employers.

 

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

Leave to Appeal Air Canada mandatory retirement case to Supreme Court of Canada dismissed

As predicted, there was an application for leave to appeal Air Canada’s mandatory retirement case to the Supreme Court of Canada; however, without providing any reasons, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application and refused to hear the matter.

 

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

Most-viewed articles this week on HRinfodesk

The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with workplace discrimination due to childcare obligations, terminating a disabled employee on sick leave and the need to have clear written policies on employee conduct and discipline.

 

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

Federal Court clarifies that the prohibited ground of “family status” includes “childcare obligations”

Do employers have to accommodate the “childcare responsibilities” of their employees to the point of undue hardship? The Federal Court has confirmed that in the federal jurisdiction the answer is yes subject to the requirement that the childcare responsibility be a “substantial parental obligation”.

 

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

Air Canada pilots’ mandatory retirement saga continues

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…

 

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

The Air Canada pilots’ mandatory retirement saga – will it end with the tribunal’s third decision?

In July, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal made its third decision in the case of two Air Canada pilots who challenged the airline’s mandatory retirement policy. The tribunal decided in favour of Air Canada. Then, in August, the tribunal decided in a similar case involving 70 other Air Canada pilots. The tribunal again decided in favour of the airline, but for different reasons. For those hoping the July decision would settle the matter once and for all, the August decision is sure to confuse matters.

 

, , , , , , , , , ,

Family status – a ground of discrimination just like any other

Some recent cases make the message to employers very clear: employers cannot minimize or ignore requests for accommodation on the basis of family status. The requests must be treated in the same way as requests for accommodation based on any other protected ground in the human rights legislation.

 

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

Is mandatory retirement really mandatory?

Section 15.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) provides that “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on…age.”

 

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

Air Canada pilots must be reinstated after forced retirement

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ordered Air Canada to reinstate two pilots, aged 65 and 67, who were forced to retire at age 60.

 

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

Slaw: Human rights tribunal defends family values: work-life balance ruling

While not every childcare need gives rise to an employer obligation to accommodate, the employee argued that her complicated and unpredictable schedule made it impossible to care for her children. Moreover, she knew that…

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Employees with disabilities – accommodation strategies (Part I)

Accommodating employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship under human rights legislation can be a complicated task. It’s important to make sure the accommodation process goes smoothly and the employee can focus on working as efficiently as possible, but employers may not be sure about what kinds of questions to ask disabled employees in order to meet their needs.

 

, , , , , , , , ,