First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll, HR & Employment Law

decorative image

Sambrano Legal Services

Lack of evidence works against employer at the HRTO

In the matter of Puniani v. Rakesh Majithia CA Professional Corporation, after being terminated from her employment, the applicant filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination based on sex. The respondents denied any such claims and alleging the reason for the applicant’s termination was related to job performance.

 

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

The double “financial” jeopardy of HRTO damages against the employer

An employer named in a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Application, if decided against, may be responsible for both wage loss and most likely general damages.

 

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

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.

 

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

HRTO issues rare interim order based on family status

As common as an interim order or decision may be, it is uncommon that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario may issue an order that institutes compliance on the part of the respondent prior to the conclusion of the matter. Such was the case Tomlinson v. Runnymede Healthcare Centre.

 

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

Family status: The employee’s obligation under “the Code”

The recent decision of Misetich v. Value Village Stores Inc. reaffirms that family status accommodation under the Human Rights Code is a joint obligation, involving both the employee and employer.

 

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

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

Rule of law

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”

Rule of law

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

 

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