Upcoming Webinar: December 5, 2024 @ 12:30 P.M. (ET) | What’s new in Québec? Legislative updates and recent cases you should know about | Register Today!
“If you can’t write out your mandate in a short and simple paragraph, don’t start.”
When delivering our Workplace Investigation Fundamentals sessions, this is how I start the discussion on mandate. Simply put, an investigator’s mandate is the thing (or things) that they are being asked to do, the decision (or decisions) that they are being asked to make.
Employers and workplace investigators face a continually-evolving understanding of “discrimination” under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”). In recent years, the case law has recognized that discrimination can occur in a wide variety of forms, often subtle and indirect.
My colleagues Christine Thomlinson and Lori-Ann Green recently wrote about how an organization’s respect at work policies, often written to comply with its legal obligations and to correspond with legislative requirements, may use legal and technical language which can be difficult to interpret, and may, from the perspective of those whom the policy is designed to protect, not be easy to navigate.1
Most Canadian jurisdictions require employers to have policies that address issues like workplace harassment, discrimination, and violence. In our investigation practice, we read many of these “respect at work” policies, and the overwhelming majority of them are clearly written to specifically comply with legislative requirements.
Le gouvernement de l’Ontario a récemment annoncé le dépôt du projet de loi 190 (également connu sous le nom de Loi de 2024 visant à œuvrer pour les travailleurs, cinq). Le projet de loi propose des modifications à divers textes législatifs liés à l’emploi. L’un de ces changements est l’élargissement des définitions du harcèlement au travail et du harcèlement sexuel au travail en vertu de la Loi sur la Santé et la Sécurité au Travail (« LSST ») pour y inclure certaines activités virtuelles.
The Ontario government recently announced its introduction of Bill 190 (also known as the Working for Workers Five Act, 2024). The bill proposes changes to various pieces of employment-related legislation. One of these changes is the expansion of the definitions of workplace harassment and workplace sexual harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) to include certain virtual activities.
Where does the time go? Federally-regulated organizations surely recall the passing of Bill C-65 which amended the harassment and violence provisions of the Canada Labour Code (“CLC”). They also no doubt recall the accompanying Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations (“Regulations”) that came into effect in January of 2021, and set out more specific requirements for those employers that fall within federal jurisdiction.
We often hear horror stories about workplace complaints being handled poorly — instances where employers don’t act, investigators miss the mark, and so on and so forth. I’ll now be the bearer of good news and share what the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) recently found to be reasonable handling of a complaint in Salanguit v. Parq Vancouver and another.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2024
