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.
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.
Defending a lawsuit is not the new black, or: If you stick your head in the sand for six years, the most likely outcome is suffocation
You have probably heard about the recent allegations of sexual assault against a WestJet pilot, and how WestJet failed to properly handle the allegation. Here is a quick summary: a former WestJet flight attendant, Mandalena Lewis, has filed a claim in the B.C. Supreme Court alleging that, after she reported that she was sexually assaulted on a layover in Hawaii in 2010, WestJet did not properly investigate the allegation. In fact, they chose to protect the pilot and eventually fired her for pursuing the matter.
Ontario Human Rights Commission released updated policy on “preventing discrimination based on Creed”
This past December the Ontario Human Rights Commission released a new and comprehensive 173 page Updated Policy on Preventing Discrimination based on Creed to replace its earlier Policy that was first published in 1996. The Commission stated that given the significant demographic changes in Ontario, it has been working on a new policy since 2012. The aim of the policy is to highlight how discrimination on the basis of Creed can be avoided in broader Ontario society which is increasingly more diverse.
Can you think of a store, restaurant, or bar that appears to require women to wear low-cut tops, short skirts, tight dresses, or high heels when they go to work? Well, it might be wise for those employers to take another look at their dress code policy in light of the Ontario Human Rights Commission position on gender-specific dress code announced on International Women’s Day 2016 and the passing into law of occupational health and safety provisions protecting against workplace sexual harassment and violence. Under Bill 132, the OHSA’s definition of “workplace harassment” will be expanded to include “workplace sexual harassment.”
Under section 46.3 (1) of Ontario’s Human Rights Code, an employer may be vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of their employees. Such was the case in the recent Human Rights Tribunal decision.
Generally speaking, res judicata (Latin for “a thing adjudicated”) is the legal doctrine which prevents the same matter from being tried a second time once there has been a verdict or decision in regard to that matter. Under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, a criminal matter being decided in regard to a matter that contains a breach of the Human Rights Code does not necessarily prevent an applicant from filing at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. This was the case in G.G. v. […] Ontario Limited.
A recent Ontario Human Rights case further underscores the employer’s ongoing duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship, and that Code based harassment or discrimination constitutes a breach under the Human Rights Code of Ontario.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with the importance of carefully crafting employment agreement; an employer’s offensive, distasteful and inappropriate’ motivational presentation; and, OHS worker fatality.
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.
You’d probably be fair in thinking that a deaf, gay Aboriginal man can have a hard time getting a break, but Darryl Wesley seems like the type of person who doesn’t let obstacles get in his way. Nonetheless, when he was terminated from a landscaping job in North Bay, Ontario…