The duty to accommodate presents itself to employers in many forms. While the most common accommodation involves a disability, often there are other grounds for accommodation that an employer must address as illustrated (more…)
When a respondent is first made aware that a Human Rights application has been filed against them, often their first response is to deny any accusations and to request a summary hearing in hopes of disposing of the matter at the outset. While such hearings may be requested, it does not always work to the advantage of the respondent. Such was the case in the recent Interim Decision of Lomotey v. Kitchener Waterloo Multicultural Centre.
Pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, a summary hearing is (more…)
The applicant, Jessica Maciel, was just over four months pregnant when she applied for, and was hired as a receptionist by the respondents, Fashion Coiffures Ltd. and Crystal Coiffures Ltd.. (more…)
Does an employee have to be “sexually” harassed in order for there to be a breach of the Human Rights Code (“Code”)? This issue was determined in Hill v. Intersteam Technologies Inc., a recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
The applicant, Kelly Hill, worked in a small workplace. She was employed with the corporate respondent, Intersteam Technologies Inc., for only a short period of time from May of 2013 until November 2013. (more…)
The seminal cases dealing with discrimination based on family status more often than not address the issue of caregiving. See: Family status: Recent interpretation under the Human Rights Code. See: Employee not discriminated against as breastfeeding a “choice”- Federal Court of Appeal Decision. In the recent case, Knox-Heldmann v. 1818224 Ontario Limited o/a Country Style Donut, the Tribunal demonstrates that discrimination based on family status is not restricted to caregiving. (more…)
Under section 46.3 (1) of Ontario’s Human Rights Code, an employer may be vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of their employees. Such was the case in the recent Human Rights Tribunal decision of McCarthy v. Kenny Tan Pharmacy Inc.. [i]
Simply put, an organization is responsible for discrimination that occurs through the acts of its employees or agents, whether or not it had any knowledge of, participation in or control over these actions.[ii][iii] (more…)
Rule 19A of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, allow the Tribunal to hold a summary hearing to determine whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.[i] This was the case in Howell v. United Steelworkers, Local 7135. (more…)
Non-disclosure clauses in human rights settlements: Understand them before you sign on the dotted line
At the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”), a settlement is sometimes reached without having to resort to a hearing. If so, parties will sign a “Minutes of Settlement” agreement, which will almost always contain a non-disclosure clause outlining what can be said, if anything, in regard to the settlement. In the event that a party breaches the non-disclosure agreement, they may find themselves returning to the Tribunal sooner than expected. (more…)
The applicant, Colin Adams who identifies as Black, worked as a machine operator at Knoll North America Corp. (“Knoll”) for 9 years. Following a verbal altercation with his supervisor, the applicant was terminated after he refused to partake in an anger management program as a requirement of his continued employment. (more…)