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…

City Did Not Breach Duty to Accommodate When it Declined Firefighters’ Request for Exception to Mandatory Retirement Policy

In a recent decision, Corrigan v. Corporation of the City of Mississauga [1], the Divisional Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”), which found that the City of Mississauga did not breach its procedural duty to accommodate when it declined to accommodate suppression…

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…

Human Rights Update 2014: Accommodation and the Diverse Workforce

Materials Case Law Summaries PowerPoint Presentation Slides Agenda As the workforce in Ontario has become increasingly diverse, the range and complexity of accommodation issues facing Ontario employers have also grown substantially.  Keeping up with the continually-evolving legal landscape with respect to accommodation issues can be a challenge for many busy Corporate Counsel and Human Resources…

HRTO Decision Granting Significant Remedies Upheld on Appeal

The Divisional Court has upheld a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in which the Tribunal ordered significant damages against the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board and also ordered reinstatement of an employee after an almost decade-long absence from the workplace. The Court agreed with the applicant’s submission that “the goal of the remedial provisions of the Code ought not to…

Reaching Out – Sixth Edition

Dear Friends, With summer heating up, burning human resources issues continue to smolder as well. At Hicks Morley, we hope that you are enjoying the summer sunshine and we welcome you to the Summer 2014 Edition of Reaching Out, designed to address a number of relevant practical issues of particular interest and application to management…

Employer Permitted to Define “Spouse” under Benefit Plan to Exclude Married but Separated Spouses

In a recent decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) in VanderLinde v. Oshawa (City)  (“VanderLinde”), the Tribunal found that it is not discriminatory for an employer to require that an employee’s legally married spouse be living with the employee as a condition of eligibility as a spouse under its group benefit plan. In…

Reaching Out – Fifth Edition

Dear Friends, Well, the verdict is in. Six more weeks of winter according to our furry rodent weather prognosticators! And what better way to fill those cold blustery evenings than something interesting and topical to read? Welcome to the Winter 2014 Edition of Reaching Out, our newsletter specifically focussed on issues relevant, and of particular…