Upcoming Webinar: May 7, 2024 @ 12:00 P.M. (ET) | Cultural Initiatives in Policing: Part 2 – Calgary Police Service | Register Today!
It’s not entirely surprising that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (the OHRT) rendered a decision recently, holding that a miscarriage constitutes a “disability” for human rights purposes. What is perhaps less clear is what this will mean for employers. Winnie Mou brought a human rights application against her former employer, MHPM Project Leaders, alleging discrimination
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
In his Report on the Ontario Human Rights Review 2012, Andrew Pinto commented on the general damages awards being awarded by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”). Noting that general damages awards of $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000 seemed to correspond to low, medium and high damage awards, he commented that “there appears to be
We often hear from clients and participants in our training courses that they have difficulty determining whether discrimination has occurred at the conclusion of their investigations. A recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario succinctly articulates the test for discrimination and demonstrates its application. In Pieters v. Toronto Police Services Board (2014 HRTO
I recently blogged about a case (Clark v. Bow Valley College 2014 AHRC 4) in which an employer was found by the Human Rights Tribunals of Alberta to have discriminated against an employee on the basis of her family status. The Tribunal concluded that the College had not accommodated the employee when she asked for her
On August 7, 2014 the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued its decision in the case of Hulbert v. Cott Beverages. This was an application by Mr. Hulbert where he alleged that Cott Beverages discriminated against him contrary to the Human Rights Code (“the Code”). Specifically he alleged that his employer discriminated against him on
I often find myself explaining the meaning of a confidentiality provision to an employer who I am representing in mediation or in settlement negotiations. I am always asked what if the other side breaches it and says something about what we have agreed to pay them? What can I do? The answer, I must admit,
In a recent case before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Maclean v. The Barking Frog, (April 16, 2013), a man alleged that a bar had discriminated against him by charging him a higher entrance fee than women on ladies’ night. The applicant, Maclean, went out one evening with his friends to The Barking Frog,
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2024
