I find it amazing what we, as human beings, have had to do in the last week to adapt to the realities of living with COVID-19. I am so impressed, for example, by how some small businesses have been able to quickly change how they deliver their goods and services so that they can survive and how customers have embraced and supported this. I am equally impressed that office employees have rolled up their sleeves and found new ways to communicate with one another to “get the job done” and that offices with hundreds of workers are able to operate remotely.
A recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has created further confusion on the duty to accommodate as it relates to discrimination on the basis of family status. Family Status – A (brief) History Historically, there have been multiple (and conflicting) lines of cases on the test to be applied in cases
We hope that most employers are familiar with their substantive obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “OHRC”). However, I have found that employers can overlook a “hidden” provision in the OHRC which imposes liability on them not only for the discriminatory actions of their controlling minds and/or senior employees, but also for those
Mastering the ins and outs of the duty to accommodate under human rights legislation is hard. In fact, some would go so far as to say impossible. It’s no wonder this topic has floated to the top of the list of challenges faced by HR practitioners. I’ve given this some thought and come up with
Recently, the Ontario Human Rights Commission released its Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed, updating their previous creed-related policy from 1996. Like other recent Commission policies on topics such as gender identity/expression and family status, the Policy provides clarity on the definition of the ground, while also providing guidance for employers on specific situations
The people who ran the Northern Lights Manor (the “Manor”), a personal care home in Flin Flon, Manitoba, certainly thought so. However, their steadfast belief in this approach to dealing with alcohol addiction has now led to a very costly legal decision against the Manor. Linda Horrocks worked at the Manor as a health care
Supporting an employee coping with an addiction is a challenging workplace issue particularly where human rights legislation requires accommodation of employees facing addiction and dependency. But what happens when the employee denies having an addiction and it can or does affect the core duties of the employee? That’s precisely the circumstance that Elk Valley Coal
Are we still having the discussion that an employee needs to be 100% recovered from an injury before she/he can return to work? According to a recent Nova Scotia Human Rights Board of Enquiry decision in Tanner v. Alumitech Distribution Centre Ltd., 2015 CanLII 15118 (NS HRC) apparently so. John Tanner was involved in a