By Kyla Stott-Jess

Employers in Canada can’t discriminate against employees based on mental disabilities. But the broad interpretation that courts and arbitration boards frequently apply to human rights laws often makes it difficult to know where the boundaries of “mental disability” lie.

In a recent arbitration decision in Ontario, Windsor (City) and WPFFA (Elliot), the arbitrator found that an employee’s mood problems and stress issues weren’t classifiable as mental disorders. He didn’t qualify as having a mental health disability requiring accommodation. read more…

By Alix Herber and Keri Bennett

Human Rights Tribunals across Canada are constantly expanding the interpretation of prohibited grounds. Ontario has recently joined Manitoba and the Northwest Territories and gone one step further by recognizing gender identity as a prohibited ground. read more…

By Antonio Di Domenico

Occupational health and safety laws across Canada provide that employers must take certain steps to protect the health and safety of their workers. But none go so far as to make certain health and safety training mandatory. At least not until now. read more…

by Rosalind H. Cooper

Employers in many Canadian provinces have often looked to Ministry of Labour inspectors to provide guidance to assist them in complying with their obligations under various occupational health and safety statutes and regulations. Employers often request such advice because they believe that Ministry of Labour inspectors, who visit multiple workplaces and observe many different means of compliance, have useful guidance or recommendations. read more…

By Julia Kennedy and Sean McGurran

Bullying isn’t just a problem on the playground anymore. Eventually the bullies grow up and get jobs. Now Canadian employers are seeing more laws dealing with harassment in the workplace.

read more…

By Alix Herber and Michelle Johnston

The Ontario government is leading the Canadian provinces in its push for accessibility for people with disabilities, a ratio that is estimated to rise to one in five people in Canada by 2025.

read more…

By Rosalind Cooper

Which party on a construction project is the “constructor”? While some provinces in Canada use this term, other provinces use slightly different terms, such as prime contractor. All are meant to refer to the party at the workplace that has overall responsibility for health and safety on the construction project. It’s generally that party that’s exposed to the greatest legal liability in terms of safety-related incidents.

“Constructor” obligations
For example, under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), constructors have significant obligations. They must ensure that all employers and workers on the project comply with OHSA and the Construction Regulations. The case law has confirmed that constructors will be held to a high standard in meeting those obligations. Therefore many companies go to great lengths to avoid assuming this role on a project.

An Ontario court has recently provided some further guidance on what indicators will be looked at in determining who is a constructor. In the case of R. v. Reid & DeLeye Contractors Ltd., a company was found to be a “constructor,” rather than the construction manager it had contracted to be.

Background
In June of 2005, Reid & DeLeye contracted with a hotel owner to construct a new hotel in Cambridge, Ontario. Reid & DeLeye intended to be the construction manager. The company was responsible for carrying out specific roles during the pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases of the project.

read more…

By Ian Campbell and Justine Connelly

The evolution of privacy rights in the Canadian workplace continues. In recent months we have updated you on court and labor arbitration decisions that have commented on employee privacy rights. An individual employee tried to take her rights one step further when she sued another employee for invasion of her privacy rights.

read more…

By Maria Giagilitsis

Ontario’s highest court recently ruled that an employer’s right to buy back a senior executive’s shares was triggered on his termination date — not the end of the reasonable notice period. Paul R. Love had argued for the later date. His shares had substantially increased in value during the notice period. Love lost.

Facts
As of the termination date, Love had worked for Acuity Investments for only two and a half years. He had accepted the position primarily because he was offered an ownership stake.

read more…

By Maria Giagilitsis and Brian Smeenk

In a decision released earlier this week, the highest court in Canada’s most populous province, Ontario, issued a surprising ruling on workplace privacy law. The case involved criminal charges against a teacher accused of possession of child pornography.

read more…