Sambrano Paralegal► Resource Blog

Home » Posts tagged 'duty to accommodate'

Tag Archives: duty to accommodate

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…)

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…)

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…)

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…)

Employee not discriminated against as breastfeeding a “choice”- Federal Court of Appeal Decision

Toronto Sambrano paralegal human rights

The recent decision by the Federal Court of Appeal of Flatt v. Canada (Attorney General), addresses the employer’s duty to accommodate. Ms. Laura Flatt, the applicant, sought a judicial review from the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (Board) after her grievance against her employer, the Treasury Board of Canada, was dismissed. The applicant had filed her grievance based on discrimination on the grounds of sex and family status contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act. (more…)

Workplace religious accommodation: A two-part obligation under human rights

scales-159031Under the Human Rights Code (Ontario), the duty to accommodate in the workplace is a two-part obligation. Employers who do not make at least a reasonable effort to comply with this obligation can find themselves having to pay a financial price. This was the reality in Qureshi v. G4S Security Services, 2009.

Facts of the case

The applicant, Muhammad Quersih, a male of Muslim Faith, was being considered for a security guard position. (more…)

No “give and take” required by employee in accommodation under the Human Rights Code

Toronto human rights advocate human rightsThe applicant, Michele Macan, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment due to disability. The respondent, Stongco Limited Partnership, rejected the allegations, instead submitting that the applicant’s disability was “not a reason, a factor, or even considered in its decision to terminate the applicant”.[1]

The respondent alleged that her termination was a result of a restructuring within the applicant’s department. The hearing was held over the course of 3 days.

Background

Prior to the applicant being hired, the applicant had been diagnosed with a chronic medical condition which required frequent time off from work. At the time of her termination, the applicant had worked (more…)

Poisoned work environment, discrimination, and undue hardship under the Ontario Human Rights Code

The applicant, Darryl Wesley, worked with the respondent company, 2252466 Ontario Inc. o/law-753482_640a The Ground Guys, performing landscape work for a period of approximately six weeks before being terminated. At the time, the employer indicated that Mr. Wesley was being laid off due to lack of work. Mr. Wesley, a gay Aboriginal man, who is also deaf, believed that he had been discriminated against and filed a human rights application. The respondents denied the allegation of harassment and discrimination.

On January 3, 2014, a hearing was conducted by teleconference without the participation of the respondents. As the respondents had elected not to participate and give evidence, the applicant’s evidence was uncontradicted. (more…)

“Conduct of the respondent was heavy handed and unjustifiable”

Sambrano Legal Human Rights Employment Law

The recent Human Rights decision of Rollick v. 1526597 Ontario Inc. o/a Tim Horton’s Store No. 2533, addresses what the Tribunal characterized as “heavy handed and unjustifiable” conduct on the part of the employer, when dealing with an employee with a disability.

The applicant, Sabrina Rollick, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on disability. The respondent did not file a response. A hearing was held in the respondent’s absence. (more…)

%d bloggers like this: