More human rights ‘frustrations’

May 01, 2016 0 COMMENTS

by David G. Wong

Traditionally, when an employee’s absenteeism was excessive and there was no reasonable prospect of  returning to work in the foreseeable future—as long as there was no contractual term providing otherwise—a Canadian employer could discharge the employee for non-culpable absenteeism or treat the employment contract as having been frustrated. This would bring the employee’s employment to an end. read more…

May the enforceability of your release be with you

August 10, 2014 0 COMMENTS

by Hannah Roskey

We have all been faced with employees’ buyer’s remorse. They accept a severance package, sign a release, cash the severance check, and then claim that the release is unenforceable. Recently the Alberta Human Rights Commission considered this very issue in Marquardt v. Strathcona County. read more…

Toronto employer liable because of inadequate investigation of human rights complaint

June 22, 2014 0 COMMENTS

By Alix Herber

Inadequate investigation of employees’ discrimination complaints can expose employers to human rights damages. This is so even when employers do most things right. read more…

Human rights complaint can hurt your reputation AND your bottom line

March 23, 2014 0 COMMENTS

By David G. Wong

Until recently, the damages awarded by Canadian human rights tribunals, courts, and arbitrators across the country for human rights violations were relatively modest. In the past few years, we have seen those awards increase, although not to an outrageous level. But that might all be changing, as two recent decisions out of Western Canada—one out of British Columbia and the other out of Alberta—suggest. read more…

No more human rights forum shopping?

August 25, 2013 0 COMMENTS

By Lindsey Taylor

A few weeks ago, we reported on the recent decision in Baker v. Navistar Canada Inc., which confirmed that unionized employees aren’t able to bring employment claims to court. Rather, these claims must be brought within the framework of the special legal relationship between the union and the employer, either by way of a grievance or a complaint to the respective Labour Relations Board if there are grounds to do so.

But what about human rights issues – where should a unionized employee address those? And can a unionized employee pursue claims in both arbitration and human rights forums? A recent case from the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Mahdi v. Hertz Canada, says “no.” read more…

Managing the message in the hiring process in Canada: human rights risks

June 23, 2013 0 COMMENTS

By Marc Rodrigue

Hiring a new employee can be a lengthy process, fraught with complex evaluations of skills, qualifications, and other attributes. The whole process must of course comply with applicable provincial and federal antidiscrimination laws.

What people say during the process may provide evidence that a hiring decision is discriminatory. Where multiple people are involved, the risk increases that remarks are made that are perceived as discriminatory. As one employer in Ontario recently discovered in Reiss v. CCH Canadian Limited, failure to manage the message to candidates can lead to a successful human rights claim even if the decision itself was proper. read more…

Better an addict than a thief: disciplining drug- and alcohol-dependent employees

March 24, 2013 0 COMMENTS

By Jennifer M. Shepherd and Hannah Roskey

It’s well established that discrimination against an employee on the basis of a physical or mental disability is prohibited in Canada. Drug or alcohol addictions constitute a “disability” under most human rights legislation such that employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of their addictions.

read more…

Wal-Mart Employee Class Action in USA – Lessons for Canadian Employers?

January 10, 2011 0 COMMENTS

By Donna Gallant

When the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (San Francisco) affirmed an order certifying the largest employment discrimination class action ever in the United States, Wal-Mart was left facing a class of up to 1.5 million members. Employers were left wondering just how big and powerful these opponents might get.

On December 6, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to a review. U.S. employers are hoping the Supreme Court’s decision will put more restrictions on employment class actions. Canadian employers will want to stay tuned. Class actions south of the border can inspire similar litigation in Canada.

read more…

Hiring Decisions and Older Workers — Avoiding Liability

December 27, 2010 0 COMMENTS

By Alix Herber and Hadiya Roderique

Across Canada, human rights legislation prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of age. This applies to all aspects of the employment relationship — job advertisements, application forms, job interviews, hiring decisions, denial of promotional opportunities, and termination decisions.

read more…

Aspects of Attendance Management Program Ruled Discriminatory

November 22, 2010 0 COMMENTS

By David Wong

Attendance management programs themselves aren’t discriminatory — they just need to be carefully designed and properly applied. Such is the latest conclusion in continuing litigation between Coast Mountain Bus Company Ltd. and the Canadian Auto Workers, a battle over an attendance management program covering transit operators in the Greater Vancouver region in British Columbia.

In May 2009, we commented on the British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision in which the court largely accepted the employer’s program.

read more…

 Page 1 of 2  1  2 »