Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Decision on Post Age 65 Benefits Raises Important Issues

The recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) in Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board raises important issues about the provision of benefits to employees aged 65 and older. In Talos, the Tribunal found that section 25 (2.1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code), which effectively permits employers to cease providing employees with benefits at age 65, is unconstitutional. More specifically, the Tribunal held that this age-based “carve out” from Code protection violates the equality guarantee under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit.

Workplace Law in Canada: A Primer

This Guide provides American employers with an introduction to employment laws and regulations that affect businesses in Canada. It outlines an overview of the main differences between Canadian and U.S. workplace laws.

Ontario’s Proposed New Anti-Racism Standards

As we previously reported, the Ontario Anti -Racism Act (ARA) came into force on June 1, 2017. One of the purposes behind the ARA is to allow certain organizations to collect information that will be used to identify and monitor systematic racism and racial disparities for the purpose of eliminating systemic racism and advancing racial…

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.

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…