As global concerns are on the rise, and in light of yesterday’s news of the first presumptive case of Coronavirus in Atlantic Canada, employers in this region should consider how to respond if the Coronavirus presents within the workplace. What is Coronavirus? COVID-19, commonly referred to as Coronavirus, is a virus which may cause symptoms […]
Canadian Courts have long wrestled with the protection of human rights in the context of workplace drug and alcohol policies.
New Brunswick is about to join the bandwagon by adding “family status” as a protected ground in its Human Rights Act. All other jurisdictions in Canada have already made this move.
Yes, it’s 2017, but gender discrimination continues to persist in many workplaces. Discrimination in employment on the basis of gender is contrary to human rights legislation and leaves an employer vulnerable to liability for its wrongful conduct.
Misetich v Value Village Stores Inc., 2016 HRTO 1229 (“Misetich”), a recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) that considered an employee’s eldercare responsibilities, casts doubt on the correct legal test to be applied in cases of family status discrimination.
A recent labour arbitration decision out of Ontario considers an employer’s obligation to protect its employees from harassment via an employer’s presence on social media.
Under the Nova Scotia Human Rights framework, a Board of Inquiry must approve any settlement reached after a complaint is referred to a hearing before the Board.
Dealing with employees who take maternity and/or paternity leave and then return to the workplace can be challenging for employers. However, the ability of parents to take maternity and/or paternity leave, and return to their employment, is a legislated right.
Family status cases continue to work through human rights tribunals across the country.
The complainant was a unionized employee and his Collective Agreement provided top-up benefits to adoptive parents, but not to biological parents. The Board of Inquiry concluded that the distinction in benefits constituted discrimination on the basis of family status.