Kevin Sambrano
The employee’s responsibility under the “Code”
Accommodation under the “Code” is a bridge where both parties must meet. What happens if a reasonable effort is not made on the part of the applicant?
Interim remedies at the HRTO revisited following termination
The previous article citing Tomlinson v. Runnymede Healthcare Centre discussed interim orders at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Of note is the rarity of a decision that institutes compliance on the part of the respondent prior to the conclusion of the matter. In such a request, the burden of proof is placed squarely upon the applicant, as in Codrin v. Commissionaires Great Lakes.
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.
Ainmelk v. Jeoffrey: Interim remedies at the HRTO revisited
Although the Tribunal does have the power to issue orders in regard to compliance, it is rare that they are granted, based on a very specific criteria that must be met. One should review each guideline carefully before requesting such an order in the interest of time, money, and adding to the complexity of the matter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
E.T. v. Dress Code Express Inc., the “Code” as applied to minors
The Ontario Human Rights Code is extensive in its efforts to protect persons within Ontario, and may apply to minors in the workforce. Regardless of the age of the employee, chances are they are covered by the “Code,” and their rights may be enforced if not by the employee, then by a litigation guardian. Age as well as the other protected grounds, is not an excuse or invitation for abuse.
Marijuana use remains cloudy
As laws regarding marijuana continue to evolve, even now employers are faced with ongoing legal questions concerning medical marijuana use in the workplace.
The “G” word: Brooks v. Total Credit Recovery Limited
Brooks v. Total Credit Recovery Limited, a decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario examined words, their etymology, and their impact in the workplace.
Vexatious litigants and abuse of process at Tribunal
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has the authority to govern its own proceedings. Within this authority is the power to declare any applicant a vexatious litigant and to identity any abuse of process, either of which may result in the dismissal of an Application. The recent interim decision addresses both of these issues.
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.
Get Free Updates
Resources and offers
Awards and recognition
#10 on Feedspot's Top 75 in 2016
Employment Blogs
Fodden Award for Best Canadian Law Blog
Legal Culture Award
Runner up in the Fodden Award for Best Canadian Law Blog
Finalist in the Fodden Award for Best Canadian Law Blog
First Reference HR compliance products and services
Recent comments
-
Racialized, foreign-trained lawyer discriminated against during interview
Ageism is a big problem in the legal community. Bay Street firms and others are not interested in applicants' skills, knowledge, etc. unless they are... – Nov 16, 11:05 AM
-
Believing women while remaining neutral: Conducting sexual harassment and sexual violence investigations in a post-#metoo world
Excellent article !! Right on point. So many times we encounter opinionated employer representatives or coworkers who address complaints from positions of bias. Bias that... – Oct 30, 12:07 AM
- Generated by BWP Recent Comments.
