In Perez-Moreno v Kulczycki, 2013 OHRTD No 1080, Perez-Moreno, filed an application under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) against that his co-worker, alleging harassment in the workplace on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin. Interestingly, Perez-Moreno did not also name his employer, the Cranberry Golf Resort located in Collingwood Ontario, in the action.
Kulczycki posted on Facebook that she had been written up at work for calling Perez-Moreno “a dirty Mexican.” This post occurred after Perez-Moreno, Kulczycki’s manager, had intervened in an argument between her and another individual at work. Kulczycki stated to other employees that “now that Mexican is not going to give me anything.” The OHRT found that the statements of Kulczycki amounted to harassment in the workplace which violated the Code.
Perez-Moreno did not seek monetary damages but asked the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT) to remove Kulczycki from their shared workplace. Although the OHRT’s remedial authority is quite broad, it did not extend to the order sought in this case. However, given the seriousness of Kulczycki’s conduct, the OHRT ordered her to complete the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s online training entitled “Human Rights 101” within 30 days of this decision. The OHRT also provided a copy of the decision to the employer, a non-party to the action, to consider whether human rights training might be beneficial in the workplace.
It is clear from this decision and the growing jurisprudence in the realm of social media that workplace-related postings on social media are captured by human rights legislation where they amount to harassment in employment. This decision should serve as a reminder to employers, who can be held vicariously liable for the conduct of their employees, to ensure that employees are made aware that their conduct online can result in a human rights complaint in the workplace.
In Temple v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada,1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador determined that the plaintiff, a seasonal worker, was not employed at the date of the motor vehicle accident. As a result, he did not qualify for loss of income payments under Section B of Newfoundland and Labrador’s standard automobile insurance […]
read moreIn January 2019, Nova Scotia’s Finance and Treasury Board announced changes to the Province’s Equity Tax Credit program. Additional changes followed in the Nova Scotia 2019 Spring budget.
read moreThe recent decision of McKenna v Stewart1 sheds light on how courts interpret the impact of amendments that are made outside of the limits provided by the Statute of Limitations2, and that potentially raise a new cause of action. On Prince Edward Island, there is a two year limitation period for a claim arising out […]
read more
