Sambrano Paralegal► Resource Blog

Home » Posts tagged 'Sambrano Legal Services'

Tag Archives: Sambrano Legal Services

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…)

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…)

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…)

Respondents challenge $100,000.00 human rights decision

Toronto Paralegal human Rights SambranoWhile more often than not the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s decisions are not challenged, there are two processes by which this may be done. The first is called a request for reconsideration. The second is an application for judicial review. The latter was the case in Big Inc. v. Islam, 2015 ONSC 2921. (more…)

The Human Rights Code and Res Judicata: G.G. v. […] Ontario Limited

Toronto Paralegal Generally speaking, res judicata[1] (Latin for “a thing adjudicated”) is the legal doctrine which prevents the same matter from being tried a second time once there has been a verdict or decision in regard to that matter. Under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, a criminal matter being decided in regard to a matter that contains a breach of the Human Rights Code does not necessarily prevent an applicant from filing at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. This was the case in G.G. v. […] Ontario Limited. (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: