Upcoming Webinar: June 12, 2025 @ 12:30 P.M. (ET) | Mental Health Considerations for Workplace Investigators | Register Today!
In my previous blog post, You Ought to Know? Rethinking the ‘Reasonable Person’ Standard When Disability Is a Factor, I shared my experiences applying the reasonable person standard in investigations where the respondents identified as having cognitive, intellectual, or psychological disabilities that may have affected their ability to understand that their behaviour may be unwelcome.
Under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code, harassment is defined as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.
In Canada, an individual subject to a legal process such as a hearing or trial can request an accommodation connected to a human rights-related ground such as a disability. One common accommodation request is for permission to be accompanied by a support person for assistance, as this allows for meaningful participation in the process.
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
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2025
