First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll, HR & Employment Law

decorative image

federal court of appeal

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with three cases: One case looks at whether an employee was entitled to public holiday pay; the second case looks at whether an employee was indeed terminated, and not transferred as stated by the employer; and the third case looks at employee discipline.

 

, , , , , , , , ,

Employee not discriminated against as breastfeeding a “choice”- Federal Court of Appeal Decision

The recent decision by the Federal Court of Appeal addresses the employer’s duty to accommodate. Ms. Laura Flatt, the applicant, sought a judicial review from the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (Board) after her grievance against her employer, the Treasury Board of Canada, was dismissed. The applicant had filed her grievance based on discrimination on the grounds of sex and family status contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

 

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

No procedural duty to accommodate

The Federal Court of Appeal recently ruled in Canada Human Rights Commission v Attorney General of Canada and Bronwyn Cruden, that employers do not have a separate procedural duty to accommodate employees and any procedural inadequacy throughout the accommodation process is not critical where the employer’s actions do not constitute discrimination.

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

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?

 

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

Most-viewed articles this week on HRinfodesk

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.

 

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

Unlucky or deserving? An employee’s dismissal was unjust, but reinstatement not appropriate

A small-town bank manager who had an affair with a subordinate—including sex in the bank, during and after hours—should not have been dismissed for cause, according to the Federal Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, given the circumstances, it was not appropriate to reinstate the employee to his job.

 

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

Most-viewed articles this week on HRinfodesk

The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with EI parental benefits for a twin birth, another federal court ruling on discrimination regarding childcare obligations and how an employer responded to online harassment of management.

 

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

Expect application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada in Air Canada mandatory retirement case

Since the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the mandatory retirement practice for Air Canada pilots, some developments have taken place. First, in the primary Vilven and Kelly case, there will likely be an application filed to obtain leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutionality of section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

 

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

Air Canada’s mandatory retirement practice upheld

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.

 

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

Adoptive mothers not allowed maternity leave

Under employment standards legislation, birth mothers receive a total of 52 weeks of leave when they combine maternity (17 weeks) and parental leave (35 weeks), and are entitled to receive a total of 50 weeks of EI benefits (15 weeks maternity, 35 weeks parental) for that period. However, the same benefits are not available to adoptive mothers, who only receive 37 weeks of parental leave and 35 weeks of EI benefits. Now a new movement to challenge the law to provide equal EI benefits to adoptive parents is gaining momentum…

 

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