human rights tribunal
A recent decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal serves as a useful reminder of the utility of a reasonable settlement offer, which can result in the Tribunal putting an end to complaint proceedings without a hearing.
In Pourasadi v Bentley Leathers Inc., the Human Rights Tribunal found that accommodating a store manager by permitting the employee not to assist customers was not required, since assisting customers was an essential duty of her position.
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with:An Ontario human rights case where an employee’s dismissal by her employer for having lied about when she found out about her pregnancy was ruled to be non-discriminatory; a decision that clarifies that the duty to mitigate does not apply when an employer terminates a fixed-term employment contract before its end date; and an FAQ that looks at an employee who is looking for accommodation to care for their child because they cannot afford daycare.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: a case that looks at employment relationships, particularly between dependent and independent contractors; a case that looks at workplace accommodation for an employee who uses medical marijuana; and proposed amendments to Ontario legislation in relation to the public use of e-cigarettes and medical marijuana, that would have a variety of impacts on the public, businesses, and employers.
Human Rights Tribunal found nanny was sexually assaulted, isolated and underfed by employer.
A recent case from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario provides guidance to employers on the extent of the duty to accommodate.
It is part and parcel of a retail employee’s job to interact with customers and assist them in making purchases. However, if an employee with a disability/injury has trouble in performing this essential duty, how far must the employer go in accommodating that employee? A recent Human Rights Tribunal decision dealt with an interesting accommodation […]
In Perron v Revera Long Term Care Inc., the Human Rights Tribunal held that an employer’s duty to accommodate does not include a duty to create a new position, fundamentally change working conditions, assign the essential duties of an employee with a disability to other employees or to hire another employee to perform them in the employee’s place.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with the 2015 TD1 Ontario Personal Tax Credits Return; a case dealing with a physical altercation between employees; and when an ESA decision just isn’t enough.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with the first international standard on cloud services and personal information protection; age discrimination; and, unfunded LTD plan payment.
Last year, we reported on the notable Human Rights Tribunal decision of Fair v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board where the Tribunal ordered the reinstatement, along with over $400,000 in back pay and damages, to an employee despite the employee having been away from the workplace for almost a decade.
A few years back, the human rights system in Ontario was overhauled. The Human Rights Commission was to no longer investigate complaints and refer them to the Human Rights Tribunal (if they had some merit). All cases were to now go directly to the Tribunal for adjudication. Applicants (who are primarily employees) would have “direct access” to the Tribunal.
Human Rights Tribunals across the country have been issuing damage awards which have raised the eyebrows of the employer community. In a number of recent cases, employees have been awarded record setting damages. In many of these cases, these damages have greatly exceeded what a Court would be prepared to award in a wrongful dismissal cases.
Federal Court of Appeal outlines test for discrimination on the basis of child care responsibilities
The Federal Court of Appeal has released two companion decisions in Attorney General of Canada v Fiona Johnston and the Canadian Human Rights Commission 2014 FCA 110 (“Johnston”) and Canadian National Railway v. Denise Seeley and the Canadian Human Rights Commission 2014 FCA 111 (“Seeley”) that confirm that discrimination on the prohibited ground of “family status” includes child care obligations and in elaborating on the appropriate test to be used in order to determine when an employee can establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of family status contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Three of the most popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with Saskatchewan upcoming minimum wage; Ontario’s sunshine list; and discrimination based on sexual orientation.