Sambrano Paralegal► Resource Blog

Home » Posts tagged 'Discrimination'

Tag Archives: Discrimination

Family status: The employee’s obligation under “the Code”

The recent decision of Misetich v. Value Village Stores Inc. reaffirms that family status accommodation under the Human Rights Code (“the Code”) is a joint obligation, involving both the employee and employer. (more…)

Discrimination and a decision on remedies

In an application filed under the Human Rights Code (Code) of Ontario, once the matter has been heard, and the Tribunal has found the respondent to be liable, the next stage is that of remedy. Monetary and non–monetary damages may be awarded as was the case in Kohli v. International Clothiers, where the applicant,  (more…)

OHRC’s Policy on discrimination and language: Arnold v. Stream Global Services

As per the OHRC’s Policy on discrimination and language, although the Human Rights Code (“Code”) does not explicitly identify “language” as a prohibited ground (more…)

The duty to accommodate revisited: H.T. v. ES Holdings Inc. o/a Country Herbs

Free stock photos employment law human right paralegalThe 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…)

Maciel vs. Fashion Coiffures: pregnancy and employer’s continued obligation under the “Code”

Human Rights Employment Law Sambrano

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…)

Sex based discrimination and poisoned work environment

Sambrano Human rightsDoes 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.

Background

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…)

Family status under the Code: Recent developments

Sambrano Human rights marital statusThe 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…)

Tribunal orders pharmacy to pay $8,000.00 as a result of racial profiling

sambrano legal racial profilingUnder 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…)

Gender identity and gender expression in employment: Vanderputten v. Seydaco Packaging Corp.

Sambrano Legal Paralegal Human rights Toronto

On June 19, 2012 the Human Rights Code (Ontario) was amended adding two new protected grounds of discrimination, namely “gender identity” and “gender expression”. The first interpretation of these new grounds was examined in the Human Rights Tribunal decision in (more…)

No reasonable prospect of success: Howell v. United Steelworkers, Local 7135:

sambrano legal human rights paralegal domRule 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…)

%d bloggers like this: