163 Results

HRTO Finds No Discrimination Where Use of Medical Marijuana at Worksite Breached Zero Tolerance Policy

In Aitchison v L & L Painting and Decorating Ltd., the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) found that an employer did not discriminate against the applicant when his employment was terminated for smoking marijuana while at work, which was contrary to the employer’s “zero tolerance” policy. The applicant was employed as a seasonal painter…

Are Service Providers Liable for Harassment Between Customers? The Divisional Court Weighs In

In City of Toronto v. Josephs, the Divisional Court reviewed a recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) and specifically addressed the question of a service provider’s liability for harassment issues arising between customers. In so doing, the Court has provided useful guidance for organizations that provide services to the public, and…

Can Workplace Discrimination Arise Out of a “Non-Traditional” Employment Relationship? The Supreme Court of Canada Says “Yes”

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held that workplace discrimination can be perpetrated by someone other than the complainant’s employer or superior. Accordingly, employers should be aware that they may be responsible for discrimination against workers who are not their employees, where a “sufficient nexus” exists between a complainant and a respondent in the employment context. Learn more in this FTR Now.

Back to School Edition – Student-Focused Case Law and Legislative Update

Welcome back to school! We hope everyone enjoyed a restful summer season. To kick off the school year, we bring you the latest edition of our School Board Update with particular emphasis on legislation and decisions involving the student body…

HRTO Decision Clarifies Family Status Accommodation Test and Finds Reasonable Investigation Conducted

In Ananda v. Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, a recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal), the Tribunal confirmed its approach to assessing claims of family status discrimination (in this case, involving eldercare) and described some of the features of a picture-perfect human rights investigation…

An “Uncomfortable” Workplace Interaction – or Harassment and Discrimination under the Human Rights Code?

In dismissing this human rights application as having no reasonable prospect of success, Vice Chair Hart made helpful comments with respect to the Human Rights Code (Code) and the role of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) in dealing with “uncomfortable” workplace interactions. In short, the decision stands for the proposition that, depending on…

Federal Reforms to Prohibit Discrimination on Basis of Gender Identity or Gender Expression

Editor’s Note: Bill C-16 received Royal Assent on June 19, 2017 and is now in force. Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, passed third reading, without amendment, in the Senate on June 15, 2017. As we previously reported, Bill C-16 was introduced in the House of…