Ontario Human Rights Code
When creating policies that make statements about accessibility, attempts should be made to view disability as a social system instead of a schedule of impairments in order to align an organization’s forward movement with principles of Human Rights. Also, the time is long past due for an evaluation of how intersecting identities can create unique accessibility and accommodation needs.
At the June 2, 2016, Ontario Employment Law Conference, during the Q&A session, we received numerous questions on topics covered at the conference but could not address them all. From time to time, till the next conference, we will be posting and answering some of these questions on the blog.
Ontario Court of Appeal upholds decision to reinstate disabled employee with 10 years back pay: Will human rights litigation ever be the same again?
I predict a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision will have a significant impact on human rights litigation. In particular, I suspect disabled employees will start asking employers to find or create alternative positions for them if they cannot perform their job duties because of a disability, and terminated employees will start asking adjudicators to reinstate them with full back pay.
Many employees now claim more than one type of legal damages in a wrongful dismissal case. This is particularly the case when the employee is disabled. The following case is a good example.
Ontario Human Rights Commission released updated policy on “preventing discrimination based on Creed”
This past December the Ontario Human Rights Commission released a new and comprehensive 173 page Updated Policy on Preventing Discrimination based on Creed to replace its earlier Policy that was first published in 1996. The Commission stated that given the significant demographic changes in Ontario, it has been working on a new policy since 2012. The aim of the policy is to highlight how discrimination on the basis of Creed can be avoided in broader Ontario society which is increasingly more diverse.
Volunteers are crucial to many not-for-profit and public organizations. All not-for-profits have volunteers – even if it is just at the Board of Director level. There is widespread awareness that the training standards for the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) apply to both volunteers and staff in the organization. But what about the accessibility standard for employment? Is it applicable to volunteers?
It is extremely difficult for small businesses to keep up to date on Ontario’s employment laws. This blog summarizes three laws that apply to Ontario workplaces.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently ruled in Canada Human Rights Commission v Attorney General of Canada and Bronwyn Cruden, that employers do not have a separate procedural duty to accommodate employees and any procedural inadequacy throughout the accommodation process is not critical where the employer’s actions do not constitute discrimination.
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal recently dismissed a complaint alleging discrimination made by an examiner when her contract with the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario was cancelled. Her contract was cancelled because she was unable to attend a two-day mandatory training session as she had strep throat.
A common complaint we hear from employers who are engaged in proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) is that regardless of the merits of the complaint, or the end result, the employer is burdened with the legal costs of successfully defending a complaint.
A recent private member’s bill introduced by a Liberal MPP in the Ontario legislature would add “genetic characteristics” as a prohibited ground of discrimination to the Ontario Human Rights Code. As currently drafted, “genetic characteristics” would be defined as “genetic traits of an individual, including traits that may cause or increase the risk to develop a disorder or disease”.
When a support worker at an evangelical Christian organization that runs homes for persons with developmental disabilities entered a same-sex relationship, the organization found the worker had breached its “Lifestyle and Morality Statement,” which prohibited homosexual relationships. The organization, Christian Horizons, eventually terminated the employee on that ground, and the worker complained of discrimination to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with how a probation period is an opportunity to demonstrate skills, an employer’s failure to prevent workplace harassment. and a Human Rights Tribunal decision to reinstate a terminated employee after the employer failed to accommodate.
We’re pleased to present lawyer Andrew Langille of Youth and Work on what the law in Ontario says about unpaid internships. Here, Andrew focuses on the impact of unpaid internships on interns themselves, but organizations and businesses that use or hope to use unpaid interns must pay attention. It is crucial to know whether your intern is legally an intern (and therefore not subject to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act), or actually an employee. And the answer might surprise you.