School Board Update

What information is a school board required to provide to its joint health and safety committee (JHSC)? Following Arbitrator Parmar’s decision earlier this year in Toronto Catholic District School Board v. Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (Grievance re Health and Safety) (Award), many unions are demanding that school boards provide additional student-related information to the JHSC. Learn more about the decision – and what your organization should consider before complying with these requests – in this School Board Update.

School Board Update

In a recent decision, U.M. v. York Region District School Board, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) dismissed an application brought against the Respondent school board which alleged that it had discriminated against two students (U.M and M.M.) in the delivery of educational services. This decision confirms that in special education situations, a school board is obliged to act in the interests of the students with respect to educational decisions; while it should communicate with parents, those educational decisions are not generally subject to parental control. Learn more in this School Board Update.

FTR Quarterly

In This Issue Gender Identity and Gender Expression: Best Practices for Employers and Service Providers FTRQ&A – Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act Quick Hit – Changing Workplaces Review: A Bill 148 Timeline The Dos & Don’ts of Employment Reference Letters: Best Practices for Employers Featured Lawyer – Simon Mortimer Featured Group – Pay Equity Featured Articles…

FTR Now

In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a decision of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal) which concluded that an employee who had a cocaine addiction was not dismissed because of that addiction; rather, he was dismissed for breaching his employer’s Alcohol, Illegal Drugs & Medical Policy (Policy)…

FTR Now

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (Commission) has released an Inquiry Report regarding its inquiry into the systemic barriers facing post-secondary students with mental health disabilities entitled “With Learning in Mind.” Find out more about the Commission’s initiative and its impact on Colleges and Universities in this FTR Now…

FTR Now

With the recent release of the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Strategic Plan for 2017 to 2022, renewed focus will be placed on criminal justice system accountability and issues around systemic discrimination. Find out what’s in store for your organization – and what you should be doing to ensure that you’re prepared…

FTR Now

In a significant recent decision relating to eldercare accommodation, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) indicated its intention to depart from the test for family status discrimination outlined by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnstone and Canadian National Railway v. Seeley

FTR Now

On June 14, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. In this much anticipated decision, the Supreme Court clarified the law regarding random alcohol and drug testing in safety-sensitive, unionized workplaces, finding that universal random testing will…

Case In Point

Today, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada upheld an arbitration award which concluded that a random alcohol testing policy for use in a safety sensitive workplace was not justified. In the absence of evidence of an existing workplace alcohol use problem, it concluded that a dangerous workplace was not, on its own, reason…

News

The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently confirmed that a proportionate approach must be taken in determining whether a single incident of misconduct by a long-serving employee with a relatively unblemished work record should result in dismissal for cause. In Plester v. PolyOne Canada, the plaintiff failed to lock out a machine prior to working…

News

The Ontario Divisional Court has recently found that a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal was legally and factually unsupportable and that it was “simply not possible to logically follow the pathway taken by the adjudicator and to determine the reasonableness of the conclusions reached.” In Audmax v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and…