Upcoming Webinar: June 20, 2023 @ 12:30 P.M. (EDT)  |  Québec Cases We Should Know About | Quelques décisions du Québec que vous devriez connaître Register Today!

In celebration of our twentieth anniversary, we have created the Rubin Thomlinson LLP Workplace Human Rights Award, in partnership with Toronto Metropolitan University’s Lincoln Alexander School of Law. Learn More

Serious insight for serious situations.

Serious insight for serious situations.

Insights

Reflections and news direct from Rubin Thomlinson.
Subscribe to receive updates of interest to you.

Filtered By:

Ne me corrigez pas : quelques enseignements tirés de SÉTUE c. UQÀM

En décembre 2022, un arbitre du travail québécois1 a ordonné à l’Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM) de verser 4 000 $, à titre de dommages moraux, à Gaëlle Étémé Lebogo, une étudiante au doctorat qui s’identifie comme une femme Noire, en raison du harcèlement psychologique et discriminatoire qu’elle a subi dans le cadre d’un contrat de correctrice d’examen.

Read More

Correct me not: Insights from SÉTUE c. UQÀM

In December 2022, a Québec labour arbitrator rendered a decision ordering Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM) to pay $4,000 in moral damages to Gaëlle Étémé Lebogo, a teacher assistant and PhD student who identifies as a Black woman, following the psychological and discriminatory harassment she suffered in the workplace.

Read More

The Role of Support Persons in Promoting Culturally Safe Workplace Investigations

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.

Read More

Investigation trends: Managing managerial discretion

Most organizations allow employees to use some degree of discretion (i.e., use their own judgement) when making hiring, promotional, and pay decisions. I have noticed a trend in several of my recent investigations, which is that the exercise of managerial discretion became a source of friction and …

Read More

Who’s on the hook? Vicarious liability and human rights law

One question that often arises when addressing incidents of discrimination or harassment under human rights legislation is who is liable. This issue arose in a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Incognito v Skyservice Business Aviation Inc., …

Read More

Sexual Misconduct in the Military, Part I – The Preliminary Battle Plan

Canada’s Defence Minister Anita Anand recently advised Parliament that she has ordered the Canadian Armed Forces to plan significant operational changes, meant to ground the cultural transformation required to reduce the CAF’s high rate of sexual misconduct amongst service members.

Read More

A refresher on the “duty of care” – Who do we owe it to? | Petit rappel sur le « devoir de diligence », à qui est-il dû ?

Workplace investigations have been around for quite some time as a way for diligent employers to address potential issues hindering the workplace. If, as a result of its long-standing use, they no longer appear cryptic in the eyes of some employees and employers, they still carry a perfume of mystery and elicit questions for many others. In my practice, most of the questions I hear from parties and witnesses in an investigation are procedure-based, pertaining to confidentiality or the length of the process.

Read More