First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll & Employment Law

decorative image

human rights complaints

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”.

 

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

The Human Rights Tribunal says “no” to forum shopping

It has been a year since the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola (“Figliola”). In Figliola, the Supreme Court stated that human rights complaints should not be relitigated before a human rights tribunal when they have already been litigated before another tribunal, such as the workers’ compensation board (“WSIB”), or a labour arbitration tribunal.

 

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

Most-viewed articles this week on HRinfodesk

Gender identity and access to women’s washroom facilities Would it be discriminatory to prohibit a pre-operative, male-to-female transsexual from entering a women’s washroom? The answer should be of interest to any employer or business offering services or accommodation to the public. (In PDF) Performance review must take into consideration a person’s disability An [...]

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Slaw: The Saskatchewan human rights tribunal eliminated

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2010, S.S. 2011, c. 17 (former Bill 160), was proclaimed in force on July 1, 2011. The overall purpose of the Act is to make the human rights complaints process more timely and flexible by streamlining the process for dealing with complaints and allowing more cases to be resolved without litigation.

 

, , , , , , , ,

Employer was permitted to contract out of human rights obligations

I read an interesting case recently that could be considered controversial: an employer was permitted to contract out of its human rights obligations with some vulnerable employees who were at an economic disadvantage and who experienced significant language barriers. How did the employer accomplish this? The employer added a provision in its termination letter that offered the employees consideration in exchange for signing releases preventing them from launching a human rights complaint.

 

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