First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll, HR & Employment Law

decorative image

injury to dignity

E.T. v. Dress Code Express Inc., the “Code” as applied to minors

The Ontario Human Rights Code is extensive in its efforts to protect persons within Ontario, and may apply to minors in the workforce. Regardless of the age of the employee, chances are they are covered by the “Code,” and their rights may be enforced if not by the employee, then by a litigation guardian. Age as well as the other protected grounds, is not an excuse or invitation for abuse.

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Maciel vs. Fashion Coiffures: pregnancy and employer’s continued obligation under the “Code”

The applicant alleged that she was terminated when on her first day of work she disclosed to her manager, Ms. Cinzia Conforti, that she was pregnant. In contrast, the respondents attributed her termination to the applicant’s alleged request to work part-time, although she had been newly hired for a full-time position.

 

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

Sex based discrimination and poisoned work environment

Does an employee have to be “sexually” harassed in order for there to be a breach of the Human Rights Code? This issue was determined in a recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

 

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

Family status under the Code: Recent developments

The seminal cases dealing with discrimination based on family status more often than not address the issue of caregiving. In the recent case, Knox-Heldmann v. 1818224 Ontario Limited o/a Country Style Donut, the Tribunal demonstrates that discrimination based on family status is not restricted to caregiving.

 

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

No “give and take” required by employee in accommodation under the Human Rights Code

The applicant, Michele Macan, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment due to disability. The respondent, Stongco Limited Partnership, rejected the allegations, instead submitting that the applicant’s disability was “not a reason, a factor, or even considered in its decision to terminate the applicant”.[1] The respondent alleged that her termination was […]

 

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

HRTO concludes teenage Mennonites discriminated against when fired for observing a religious holiday

religious discrimination

A small vegetable and herb business in Ontario recently ran afoul of the Ontario Human Rights Code (“Code”) because it blindly adhered to its attendance policy and failed to consider any alternatives to an employee’s request for a day off work to observe a religious holiday because it interfered with its business demands. The Ontario […]

 

, , , , , , , , , ,

Respondents challenge $100,000.00 human rights decision

While more often than not the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s decisions are not challenged, there are two processes by which this can be done.

 

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

The Human Rights Code and Res Judicata: G.G. v. […] Ontario Limited

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.

 

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

Poisoned work environment, discrimination, and undue hardship under the “Code”

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.

 

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

Rollick v. 1526597 Ontario Inc.: “heavy handed and unjustifiable conduct”

The recent Human Rights decision of Rollick v. 1526597 Ontario Inc. o/a Tim Horton’s Store No. 2533, addresses what the Tribunal characterized as “heavy handed and unjustifiable” conduct on the part of the employer, when dealing with an employee with a disability.

 

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

Emra v. Impression Bridal Ltd.: The hefty price of ignorance of the ‘Code’

The human rights case of Emra v. Impression Bridal Inc. reminds us that a disability may be  hidden, but when brought to the employer’s attention, it should not be ignored

 

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

Lugonia v. Arista Homes: Pregnancy, short-term contracts and the “Code”

In the summer of 2013 the applicant, Amanda Lugonia, began a new job at the same time she discovered she was starting a new family, the result of which was instant dismissal from her new employer. The respondent denied that the applicant’s pregnancy was a factor in the termination of her employment and in addition denied knowledge of the pregnancy, claiming the reason for her termination was due to lack of “fit”.

 

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

The cost of racial stereotyping: Adams v. Knoll North America

Following a verbal altercation with his supervisor, the applicant was terminated after he refused to partake in an anger management program as a requirement of his continued employment. On October 31, 2008 the applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination based on race. The respondents, Knoll, denied the allegations.

 

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

Sexual harassment under the Code: Smith v. The Rover’s Rest

The case of Smith v. The Rover’s Rest, 2013 HRTO 700 is a recent case dealing with sexual harassment and reprisal under the Human Rights Code of Ontario. At the time of the incidents, the applicant, Debbie Smith was a 39-year-old mother being paid $7.00 per hour as a bartender at the Rover’s Rest in […]

 

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

Family status: Recent interpretation under the Human Rights Code

Requests for accommodation due to family status is becoming more common as societal norms continue to change. The leading case in Ontario that addresses the worker’s rights and the employer’s obligations on the ground of family status is arguably Devaney v. ZRV Holdings Limited.

 

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

Previous Posts