First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll, HR & Employment Law

decorative image

prohibited grounds of discrimination

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk

The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with four new prohibited grounds of discrimination, the Suncor employee drug testing fight and 2018 salary projections.

 

, , , , , , ,

Adding new prohibited grounds in Ontario Human Rights Code

Private member’s Bill 164, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2017, introduced on October 4, 2017 in the Ontario Legislature would amend the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code) to include four new prohibited grounds of discrimination including, social condition, police records, genetic characteristics and immigration status.

 

, , , , , , , ,

Tips for recruiting online

While it may be tempting to view the web as a wild west free-for-all, it is important to remember that the law still very much applies.

 

, , , , , , , , ,

New Brunswick’s Human Rights Act: Amendments proposed

On March 15, 2017, Bill 51, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, received first reading in the New Brunswick legislature, and second reading the next day. The goal of the changes is to modernize the legislation and increase its efficiency. Indeed, this has been the first extensive review of the legislation in 25 years. These changes come on the 50th anniversary of the Human Rights Act. The ultimate goal of the review was to evolve with society and ensure that values are protected. Bill 51 aims to do just this.

 

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

Workplace partisan political arguments

workplace partisan political arguments

The U.S. 2016 presidential election and post-election are causing much debate, criticism and protest outside of America. Canadians have actively participated in public marches and protests in response to Trump’s comments and proposed policies, as well as the recent proposedU.S. ban on entry to that country from certain Muslim nations. In this context, employers are right to ask whether workplace partisan political arguments fit in the workplace.

 

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

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.

 

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

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.

 

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

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 […]

 

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

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

 

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

Previous Posts