On October 8, 2015, the Ontario government invited input from individuals and organizations to assist it in developing a strategy to close the wage gap between men and women. In this FTR Now, we review the government’s initiative, its invitation for submissions and how Ontario employers can provide their feedback. THE CONSULTATION PROCESS By way…
Category: Human Rights
Ontario Launches Three-Month AODA Compliance Blitz Targeting Large Retailers
This Fall, the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure will be leading targeted audits of retail companies with 500 or more employees during a three-month blitz to ensure workplaces and employee practices are accessible and compliant with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (“AODA”). Among other things, audited employers will be asked to provide…
Employer Investigations Held to Standard of Reasonableness, not Correctness or Perfection
In a recent decision, Zambito v. LIUNA Local 183, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“Tribunal”) provided some useful guidance on internal employer investigations. It reiterated that while it is extremely important for employers to respond seriously and promptly to all allegations of discrimination and harassment, they will be not be held to a standard of…
Federal Court Confirms “Family Status” Applies to Mother-in-Law
In Canada (Attorney-General) v. Hicks, the Federal Court held that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (“CHRT”) did not err when it found that Human Resources and Services Development Canada (“HRSDC”) discriminated against Mr. Hicks in refusing to approve expenses associated with maintaining temporary dual residences after a relocation from Halifax to Ottawa. After Mr. Hicks…
Significant Damages Awarded Against Employer for Sexual Harassment of Temporary Foreign Workers
In a recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”), Vice-Chair Mark Hart imposed a significant damages award against corporate respondent Presteve Foods Ltd. and its directing mind, Jose Pratas (“the personal respondent”). In O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods Ltd., two Applicants, O.P.T. and M.P.T., alleged that the personal respondent had engaged in…
HRTO Clarifies the Scope of Employer and Service Provider Code Obligations
Two recent decisions from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) provide helpful guidance on the scope of employer and service provider obligations under the Human Rights Code (“Code”), including the proper scope of the duty to accommodate and the question of who may bring a Code application. In this FTR Now, we review these…
The HRTO and the Duty to Accommodate: How Far Does an Employer Have to Go?
In a helpful decision for employers, Pourasadi v. Bentley Leathers, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) found that an employer’s duty to accommodate did not extend to altering the essential duties of a position. In this case, the Applicant, a retail store manager, requested a workplace accommodation for a wrist injury which prevented her…
Supreme Court of Canada On Pregnancy and Parental Leave Top-Ups
The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld a decision of a British Columbia arbitrator which had found that denying birth mothers entitlement to parental supplemental employment (“SEB” or “top-up”) benefits where they had received pregnancy SEB plan benefits was discriminatory. The issue before the arbitrator turned on an interpretation of the collective agreement in place…
Maintaining a Workplace Free of Sexual Harassment
Over the past several months, the issue of workplace sexual harassment has been in the spotlight and the subject of considerable discussion. In response to recent media attention, the Ontario Human Rights Commission recently issued a statement reiterating the legal duty of employers to prevent sexual harassment and to respond to any complaints in the…
Divisional Court Finds Arbitrator’s Approach to Pre-Access Drug and Alcohol Testing Reasonable
The Divisional Court has dismissed a judicial review application of an arbitration decision that held that pre-access drug and alcohol testing was contrary to the parties’ collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code. While the Court declined to comment on the Code, it upheld Arbitrator Surdykowski’s finding that the applicant had violated the collective…