First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll, HR & Employment Law

decorative image

canadian human rights commission

Report sets benchmarks for inequality between women and men

Canadian women still experience inequality in economic well-being, education, employment, health, housing, justice, safety, and political and social inclusion, according to a new benchmark report on gender equality…


, , , , , , , , , ,

2014 Employment law round up – Top five cases/trends/stories

With 2015 just around the corner, it is useful to reflect on the year that has just past and is coming to a close. 2014 had a number of significant employment law developments and below we have…


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

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with human rights webinars, executive resignation, and registered pooled pension plans.


, , , , , , , , , ,

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with a new mental health disabilities policy from the Ontario Human Rights Commissions; the Canadian Human Rights Commission guide on accommodating family status; and employer-subsidized personal training and nutritionist services.


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

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk

Three of the most popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with employment equity compliance audit; new JHSC certification training; and how to deal with travelling expenses for a friend of an employee.


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

Federal Court of Appeal outlines test for discrimination on the basis of child care responsibilities

The Federal Court of Appeal has released two companion decisions in Attorney General of Canada v Fiona Johnston and the Canadian Human Rights Commission 2014 FCA 110 (“Johnston”) and Canadian National Railway v. Denise Seeley and the Canadian Human Rights Commission 2014 FCA 111 (“Seeley”) that confirm that discrimination on the prohibited ground of “family status” includes child care obligations and in elaborating on the appropriate test to be used in order to determine when an employee can establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of family status contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act.


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

Federal Court clarifies that the prohibited ground of “family status” includes “childcare obligations”

Do employers have to accommodate the “childcare responsibilities” of their employees to the point of undue hardship? The Federal Court has confirmed that in the federal jurisdiction the answer is yes subject to the requirement that the childcare responsibility be a “substantial parental obligation”.


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

Canadian Human Rights Commission cautions employers on rights of aging workers

Recently, the Canadian Human Rights Commission received inquiries and was made aware of media commentary about employers seeking to take advantage of the transition period to force older employees to retire before they are ready to.


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

Human rights are a strategy, not a barrier

When you think of human rights, what comes to mind? Is it equality and basic rights for all? Or is it an intrusion into your business operations? Maybe you consider human rights a challenging opportunity, or just another way for employees to take advantage of employers in court. The Canadian Human Rights Commission wants employers to understand that human rights law and isn’t just about punishing employers; it’s about promoting equality, diversity and compromise, as well as business productivity, efficiency and growth.


, , , , ,

Slaw: Racial profiling and national security issues

With allegations of racial profiling in Arizona’s new immigration law abuzz throughout the media this week, it was interesting for me to come upon the speaking notes for a recent speech by the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission; the speech brings the issue closer to home.

The stated intent of the Arizona law is to ensure the security and well-being of American citizens living in Arizona, by protecting them from illegal immigrants and drugs. The new law requires local and state law enforcement to question people they suspect are in Arizona illegally about their immigration status. It also makes it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally; meaning, immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the United States could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500 US, and ultimately deported.

Back in Canada, the CHRC Chief Commissioner’s speech discussed a study that will examine Safety Management Systems, which consist in part of behavioural recognition techniques, a vital element of aviation security screening. It’s a whole other issue to racial profiling you might say, but it’s one that is similar and aiming at safeguarding national security.

Read the full article on


, , , , , , ,