Employers are required to accommodate individuals to the point of “undue hardship”, where the need for accommodation relates to a ground protected by human rights legislation.
In the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, there is no authority to award costs to a successful party, no matter how frivolous the other party's position may have been.
Employers cannot discriminate based on sex or gender, and so they should be implementing policies that are balanced and in line with current best practices.
Passmore and Illumiti Inc., which was released in November of last year, and is helpful for both employers and employees as it reviews the types of remedies that may be available through the tribunal, as well as how damages are assessed.
Life as a working parent is never an easy balance. While parents from all walks of life manage to make it work out of necessity, there are inevitably some missed piano recitals or sporting events because of work commitments, and conversely missed work opportunities to ensure a cheering and supportive presence at the next hockey game. Yet when that hockey game is actually a doctor’s appointment, and no one else is available to take the child to the appointment, the priorities naturally shift from work to home.
While 2017 brought about sweeping changes to the Employment Standards Act, 2000, 2018...brought about sweeping changes to the Employment Standards Act, 2000. While 2017 brought about employer panic and confusion over the legalization of cannabis, 2018... continued to do much the same. For yet another year, we were treated to several judicial assessments of the enforceability of termination clauses, and we continued to see the quantums of human rights and other damages increase. In a sense, everything old is new again.
The Lawyers of Rudner Law have penned the following open letter regarding the Ontario PC Party Resolution R4.
Employers don't have to condone recreational cannabis usage at work, and they can put policies in place to prevent employees from working while high. But, for employees who use cannabis for medicinal purposes, because of a disability, or because of addiction, which also classifies as a disability, employers do have to accommodate to the point of unreasonable hardship.
The question is whether an employer can protect itself from human rights complaints by having the dismissed employee sign a release?
We have done our best to identify the developments in 2017 that we think had, or will have, the most significant impact upon Canadian employment law. They are reviewed below, and as usual, we refuse to be limited to a “top 10” format.