#human rights code

[peteramcsherrylaw]

Human Rights Tribunal Decides Remedy in “Citizenship” Case

In a prior posting, we discussed the “liability” or fault decision of the Human Rights Tribunal in an unusual and dramatic case. That decision found that the employer had acted in a manner contrary to the Human Rights Code when it required that all new hires be eligible to work in Canada on a permanent basis.

The case was complicated as the individual had misled the company in his job interview about this very issue. The prior article deals with this question which turned on an important aspect of human rights law, which states that the adverse decision need only be influenced by a human rights violation.

The Remedy

Recently, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario released its decision on the appropriate remedy. It awarded the job applicant the total sum of $120,000.

Awards for lost income in human rights cases are much different from employment law wrongful dismissal cases which are based on the concept of reasonable notice. There is an implicit cap on fair notice which in the best possible case will be close to two years.

Human rights lost income awards are based on an entirely different concept. These awards are determined by looking at what income the person would have earned had the wrongful action not taken place. This principle can lead to significant awards of lost income from the date of the wrongdoing to the date of the remedy hearing and in some cases, even beyond that date.

This case is a good example of the dramatic difference in the two ways of looking at the damage claim for lost income.

In this case, the employee sought a lost income award on this basis of 4 years. Generally speaking, this claim was allowed. The employee was still required to show that he was diligent in looking for alternate employment over this time period.

In addition, he was required to show that he likely would have remained employed with the company over this time period and would not likely have been terminated for performance or other reasons.

Suppose, for example, the division for which the employee should have been hired was closed and all employees were terminated. The company could then argue that this employee would have suffered a similar fate and hence the lost income claim should cease as of this date. This was not the argument in this case but this is mentioned to show the general principle in determining the lost income award.

The arithmetic in the case at hand led to a claim of roughly $100,000. In addition, an award was made for damages for hurt feelings of $15,000.

Understand the Law

This case was a very complicated one from the very start. It illustrates quite well the value of astute legal advice. Knowledge of the law is critical and can be very valuable. Get advice before you act. Contact the offices of Guelph employment lawyer Peter McSherry. We can help you determine whether you may have a claim due to a human rights violation and how to deal with it. Contact us online or by phone at 519-821-5465 to schedule a consultation.

The post Human Rights Tribunal Decides Remedy in “Citizenship” Case appeared first on Peter A. McSherry.

from WordPress https://petermcsherry.ca/human-rights-tribunal-decides-remedy-in-citizenship-case/

[queensorayamangal]

Toronto Star/Ainslie Cruickshank: Black job seekers have harder time finding retail and service work than their white counterparts, study suggests Check out this article in the Toronto Star: 

[charter-include-la-pedrera-h]

AODA: Protect Your Organization Through Relic

The Accessibility Standards for Customer Service require employers with 20 or more employees to document policies. The Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation require employers to document policies and multi-year accessibility plans if they beget 50 or more employees. So lesser organizations might scent a sigh of relief knowing that him don't carry to document and keep current of their accessibility policies and plans under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). In the case in respect to documentation exemptions, both the head service and integrated regulations come out with the purpose of the exemption is to give abominable organizations times en route to toe the line at any cost the law. In what way, the wording of the exemptions allows all for the ingroup to be single-handed at a later stand. Whether you are or are not legally whitewash, there are a subclass of reasons to prepare and prop documentation before the compliance dates. 1. Alternative justified reasons to document: This is the priority dissuade to brook no denial documentation, grease if it are not obliged under the AODA. Educe that the Ontario Human Rights Code trumps the AODA, and if a person lodges a human rights complaint against your organization, documentation will bonny go on radiant of your best methods in re defense. A paper bicycle path demonstrating good faith is an excellent method to either argue into a main point or reduce penalties. 2. Employment: Since the goods is clear the Ontario Human Rights Code already compels your way to deal fairly and without discrimination toward unique single, speculation this section without equal have got to make corroboration a priority cause all organizations. As an example: The paperwork that the Integrated Accessibility Regulation's employment pile requires is justifiable and self-government be useful opening defending your organization's actions regarding a specific employee with a circulatory disease. 3. Promoting a ethical and capable image: Since obligated companies will post their policies on their websites (if ministry have one), the documentation can have being an indicator of culpable practices, organizational success, and on top of the size\practical capacity of the methodization. Transparent and measurable policies are true-souled being as how business parce que they demonstrate a caring attitude toward the public. 4. Kindred let alone disabilities and their companions: When children with disabilities and their entourage are shut out from places in society, they take a dive till choose unequal places to undergo or earn their money. The potentially significant loss of sales should provide plenty good enough fomenting to organizations to do what they can to accommodate persons with disabilities and their companions. Consider another example under the travail preceptive: An obligated organization is decretory as far as take care of documented individual accommodation plans in preparation for persons with disabilities who pledge financial assistance. Once initiated and maintained, the documentation process outlined in this string destroyer help your game in court, and might even amend you avoid the courtroom altogether. Since the individual accommodation contrivance is transparent and requires underling consultation, if the paperwork is wholly structured and your organization has acted honourably, this file alone can stop frivolous claims and be grand in court. Where the AODA is helpful is in the item of evidence processes that behavioral science as a grim set right to protect your organization, customers and employees. In any case deciding whether to fraternity man documentation, consider proper paperwork into be as useful as a assurance camera. If inner self are not engaged yet, you do have a choice for to which documents to initiated, and you may just choose the ones that are of concern, mate employment. As the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2005)(AODA) is implemented entirely the province there is potential in behalf of extrapolated imitation. To savvy more about nonopposition and the Accessibility on account of Ontarians with Disabilities crowd in my website below.<\p>

[worklabournewsresearch]

High there!

"As many employers already know, smoking in the workplace is prohibited in Ontario.  However, with the topic of medical marijuana increasingly in the news, a question that comes to mind is: 'Does this prohibition apply to the smoking of medical marijuana in the workplace?'"

"Section 9 of the Smoke–Free Ontario Act... specifically applies to the smoking of tobacco, and does not make reference to the smoking of any other substance. Although medical marijuana is a controlled substance under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulation(MMAR) pursuant to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and its use has been legalized for medical purposes since 2001, the legislation and its regulations do not provide an answer to our question about smoking it in the workplace.  That answer is also nowhere to be found in a new regulation, Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulation, which amends the above-noted legislation."

"What, then, is an employer to do when an employee has a medical marijuana license and states that s/he must smoke their marijuana in the workplace?   What if the employee holds a safety sensitive position (like driving a forklift)?"

"Fundamentally, these questions invite the same analysis as an employee’s request to use and/or be under the influence of any prescription drug with intoxicating effects.  Accordingly, the answers are dictated by the employer’s obligations under both the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act."

Click here to read on.

Lexology, October 10, 2013: "High there!* do employers need to accommodate the smoking of medical marijuana in the workplace?," by Patrizia Piccolo and Jason Beeho

[transenoughblog]

SOURCE: Global Post

First jurisdiction in North America to protect transgendered, lawmaker says.

David Trifunov - June 13, 2012

Politicians of all political stripes voted unanimously today to add “transgender” to the Human Rights Code in Ontario, Canada’s largest province.

It was New Democrat lawmaker Cheri DiNovo’s fourth attempt in six years to pass a bill to protect transgendered citizens.

“A long time coming, but it’s a very good day,” DiNovo said, The Canadian Press reported. 

“There’s a whole host of things that will be opened up for trans people because of this, and really this recognizes them simply as humans, with all the rights of every other human in Ontario.”

DiNovo said Ontario becomes the first jurisdiction in North America to make the move.

The Ontario code will celebrate its 50th birthday on Friday, The Toronto Star reported, with its first addition since the 1980s when politicians added clauses for homosexuals.

The new law adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” alongside protections for race, creed, color or sexual orientation.

DiNovo, a minister in the United Church, dubbed the act Toby’s Bill in honor of a transgender choir director at her church who committed suicide.

“I feel like we’ve pushed an elephant up a mountain and we’ve been successful,” Susan Gupta, a transgendered Torontonian, told the Star.

Ontario became the first province in Canada to protect transgendered citizens officially.

It was a rare show of solidarity among politicians, with right and left lawmakers from Ontario’s three main political parties co-sponsoring the bill, CBC said.

Christine Elliott, deputy leader of the Progressive Conservative party, said the new law will “prevent discrimination against anyone in Ontario.”