First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll, HR & Employment Law

decorative image

Kevin Sambrano human rights paralegal

Recent case assessment direction and “creed”

religious discrimination

The Halton District Catholic School Board posted a job advertisement for a contract position. The applicant replied to the advertisement, and when he was not selected for the position he filed a complaint at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination on the ground of creed.

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Employer’s duty to investigate under the “Code”

Nelson v. Lakehead University is a noteworthy decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario as it articulates the complexity of any human rights matter before the Tribunal, and further underscores the employer’s duty to investigate.

 

, , , , , ,

Evidence and credibility at the HRTO

Age is one of the protected grounds under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. Like all jurisdictions credible evidence, whether documentary or witness testimony, is needed for either side to support their version of facts.

 

, , , , , , , , , ,

The employee’s responsibility under the “Code”

Accommodation under the “Code” is a bridge where both parties must meet. What happens if a reasonable effort is not made on the part of the applicant?

 

, , , , , , , , , ,

Abrams v. Kupar: Pregnancy not a factor in short-term employee’s termination

In the matter of Abrams v. Kupar, the applicant, who was pregnant at the time, was terminated from a new job. The applicant believed it was due to the fact that she was pregnant. The respondent alleged that the termination had nothing to do with her pregnancy, but rather that the employee was not suited for the job. The matter was heard at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The Tribunal’s decision was in favour of the respondent.

 

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

Sloan v. Just Energy Corporation: Pregnancy and fairness under the Code

The Code protects employees from discrimination based on various protected grounds. One of the more difficult of these may be pregnancy, as often the question becomes not whether or not the applicant was pregnant, but rather when the employer became aware of the pregnancy, and whether or not the pregnancy was a factor in the employee’s termination.

 

, , , , , , , , , ,

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.

 

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