Home » Posts tagged 'the Human Rights Code'
Tag Archives: the Human Rights Code
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…)
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…)
The 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”.
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.
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…)
While 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…)
Generally speaking, res judicata (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…)
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…)
“…the Code contains a preamble which reflects the kinds of experiences the legislation is directed at remedying. It speaks not just to equality in relation to the law, but also to the values of understanding, mutual respect and dignity and the necessity to ensure that every citizen has the opportunity to contribute fully to the community.” (more…)
In the summer of 2013 the applicant, Amanda Lugonia, began a new job at the same time she discovered she was starting a new family, the result of which was instant dismissal from her new employer. The respondent denied that the applicant’s pregnancy was a factor in the termination of her employment and in addition denied knowledge of the pregnancy, claiming the reason for her termination was due to lack of “fit”.
The applicant, Ms. Lugonia, was hired to replace a receptionist who was preparing for a one year maternity leave. Ms. Lugonia had undergone two interviews in the early summer of 2013 and had performed quite well. As a matter of fact, her future employers were so impressed with Ms. Lugonia (more…)