It is important for employers to keep in mind that the words in employment contracts have meaning. Moreover, where it is the employer that has drafted the contract and sought the requested terms, in the event of a later dispute over said terms, it is likely the courts will give effect to the logical, common sense meaning of the contractual language and interpret any ambiguity in the employee’s favour.
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.
It would appear that there is an increasing willingness on the part of the HRTO to grant significant monetary awards to discriminated employees.