• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Blog Signup 📨

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

human rights applications

By Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services | 3 Minutes Read April 23, 2018

HRTO confirms co-op student’s right to pursue interests

Co-op students may be covered by the “Code”, and should be afforded the same inalienable rights as all other employees during a potential interview or  co-op placement.

Article by Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services / Employee Relations, Human Rights / 2 C.H.R.R. D/487, 2005 HRTO 53, 2011 HRTO 1724, applicant’s injury to dignity, Browning v. Northend Body Shop Ltd.2017 HRTO 1001, co-op students, discrimination, employer vicarious liablility, employment law, Faryna v. Chorny, feelings and self-respect, Hartling v. Timmins Board of Police Commissioners (1981), hrto, human rights applications, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano, Ontario Human Rights Code, Sanford v. Koop, sex, the Code, vicariously liability, Whale v. Keele North Recycling

By Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services | 3 Minutes Read March 26, 2018

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario: the “Code” matters, not social norms

Although there may be social norms at play, a business owner would do well to continue to update and implement workplace and human rights policies on an ongoing basis, otherwise, they may be liable for any breach of the "Code", whether intended or otherwise.

Article by Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services / Human Rights / discrimination, employment law, George v. 1735475 Ontario Limited, harrassment, hrto, human rights applications, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano, Ministry of Labour, nigglet, personal respondent, poisoned work environments, social norms, workplace harassment

By Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services | 3 Minutes Read February 26, 2018

No reason given for refusal of HRTO request to expedite, no reasons required

In this matter, the Request to Expedite was dismissed through a letter from the Registrar. In the interim decision, the Tribunal further explained that in matters dealing with process, there are no grounds for reconsideration, as only final orders may be reconsidered.

Article by Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services / Employee Relations, Human Rights / discrimination, discrimination in services, employment law, expedited hearings, Fish v. national Steel Car Litd., harrassment, hrto, human rights applications, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, interim decison, interim decisons, Kevin Sambrano, procedural fairness, reprisal, Request to Expedite, Rule 21, Rules of Procedure, the Code, Toronto Paralegal

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference is the leading publisher of up to date, practical and authoritative HR compliance and policy databases that are essential to ensure organizations meet their due diligence and duty of care requirements.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy