human rights code
Arbitrator Deborah Leighton has made history in her recent decision on remedy in OPSEU (Ranger) v. Ontario (Ministry of Corrections) 2013 CanLii 50479, which was released this past July 2013 by awarding more than $100,000 in damages for breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the applicable collective agreement for discrimination, harassment and poisoned work environment.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with the final updates on the 2014 compensation forecasts; the impact of a 2008 amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code resulting in the first award from an Ontario court for human rights damages in a wrongful dismissal case; and how a fight instigator was terminated and others involved let off.
Criminal record checks are often in the news, and the federal government was part of that news with recent changes to pardons (now called “record suspensions”) and a program that encourages employers to hire offenders. So we thought it would be a good time to ask our readers, “Does your organization conduct criminal record checks on potential candidates?”
The three most read articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with the AODA review, the 2014 Employment Insurance premium rates and how an injured employee was dismissed unjustly.
Since 2010 there has been confusion around the term “workplace harassment” in Ontario. Until that time, workplace harassment was generally limited to sexual, racial and 14 other types of harassment under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code).
Since the Supreme Court decision in British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola (“Figliola”), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) has taken a more narrow approach to its jurisdiction to hear applications where another tribunal has dealt with the same or similar issues. However, recent case law suggests that the Tribunal is moving away from the more narrow Interpretation of its jurisdiction that was laid out in Figliola.
OHRT orders $70,000 in damages against employer for reprisal termination even though complaints of discrimination lacked merit
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (“OHRT”) recently examined the law of “reprisal terminations” in the decision of Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc. In this case, the employee made a number of allegations of discrimination based on race and said that the employer terminated his employment rather than properly investigate his concerns. Although the OHRT dismissed most of the allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, it did find that the employer should have conducted an investigation prior to the employee’s termination.
On July 15, 2013, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“OHRC”) released its Policy on Removing the “Canadian Experience” Barrier (the “Policy”) barrier. The purpose of the Policy is to address the fact that new immigrants, with university educations and/or work experience, are denied opportunities for jobs or career advancement because they lack “Canadian Experience” (i.e. Canadian based work experience) and their foreign educational qualification or work experience are not recognized.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with breach of confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements; how an employer was held liable despite the employee having suffered no discrimination; and how individuals can now delay receiving their Old Age Security pension plan.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with the legality of random alcohol testing, the termination of a sexual harasser and the importance of having an effective disability management program.
Pregnant employees or those employees intending to become pregnant, enjoy significant protection under various provincial and federal statutes. This article will explore the protections provided by the Ontario Human Rights Code, Employment Standards Act, and the Employment Insurance Act.
Many H.R. Departments pride themselves on the skill with which they can interview prospective employees in order to assess their qualifications for the position being advertised, the fit of the employee with the organization, and the likelihood that the employee will stay with the organization for a reasonable period of time. What employers are often not cognizant of is the limitation imposed on this process by the provisions of various provincial and federal Human Rights statutes.