Resources: Human Rights
-
Yet Another Turn in the Saga of “Family Status” Discrimination
January 2017
Nothing worries clients more than to be told that the subject matter for which they require advice is “interesting”. Interesting is often a synonym for expensive. If that is the case, the issue of child and elder care in the context of human rights is likely to generate more expense in the coming year and beyond. The risks are made more common with an aging population and a workforce that requires busy people to juggle family commitments with work.
Read More +
Yet Another Turn in the Saga of “Family Status” Discrimination -
Bartender Claims his Termination for Smoking Marijuana at Work was Discriminatory
September 2016
Darin Burton alleged that his employer, Tugboat Annie’s Pub (the “Employer”), discriminated against him on the ground of physical disability when he was discharged for smoking marijuana at the workplace. Burton claimed that the Employer had been aware since the outset of his employment that he used medical marijuana to deal with chronic pain from degenerative disk disease.
Read More +
Bartender Claims his Termination for Smoking Marijuana at Work was Discriminatory -
Refusal of Work Not For Safety Reasons: Discharge For Just and Reasonable Cause Upheld
September 2016
In a recent decision, Arbitrator Lorne Slotnick upheld the discharge of an employee who attempted to improperly use medical restrictions and the right to refuse unsafe work under occupational health and safety legislation as the basis for refusing a work assignment.
Read More +
Refusal of Work Not For Safety Reasons: Discharge For Just and Reasonable Cause Upheld -
Just How Much Might Those Hurt Feelings Be Worth In British Columbia? BC Court of Appeal Weighs In
September 2016
The likelihood of parties in British Columbia coming to a mutually agreeable resolution of human rights disputes may have just become more unlikely as a result of the BC Court of Appeal’s recent decision in University of British Columbia v. Kelly, 2016 BCCA 271.
Read More +
Just How Much Might Those Hurt Feelings Be Worth In British Columbia? BC Court of Appeal Weighs In -
Is it Discriminatory to Exclude Childless Employees From a Child-Focused Benefit Payment?
August 2016
In Nelson v. Bodwell High School (No. 2), 2016 BCHRT 75 a single, male teacher with no children claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his family status because he was not eligible for his employer’s Child Benefit Scheme (“CBS”). The CBS provided an annual payment of $1,200 per dependent child to each full time employee with at least one year of continuing service. Mr. Nelson did not have any children so he did not qualify for any payment under the CBS.
Read More +
Is it Discriminatory to Exclude Childless Employees From a Child-Focused Benefit Payment? -
BC Human Rights Tribunal Confirms Test For Family Status Discrimination
July 2016
In Kenworthy v. Brewers Distributor (No. 2), 2016 BCHRT 54 (“Kenworthy”), the BC Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) considered the issue of family status discrimination in the context of childcare obligations. Kenworthy is a helpful update on this tricky topic and is of particular interest due to the various approaches that courts and tribunals across Canada have adopted in defining “family status” obligations in human rights legislation.
Read More +
BC Human Rights Tribunal Confirms Test For Family Status Discrimination -
Ontario Court Affirms “Family Status” Protection in the Workplace
May 2016
Family status discrimination, and the related obligation to accommodate family status, continues its trajectory of growth in the landscape of workplace legal relationships. Employers diminish the importance of employee obligations to family, especially children, at their peril.
Read More +
Ontario Court Affirms “Family Status” Protection in the Workplace -
Employer’s Inaccurate Statement About Benefits Eligibility Results in Over $90,000 in Damages
April 2016
In Feldstein v. 364 Northern Development Corp., [2016] B.C.J. No. 128 (S.C.), a misstatement by a manager regarding eligibility requirements for long-term disability (LTD) benefits was found to be negligent and the employer (“364”) was required to pay an employee who relied on that misstatement over $90,000 in damages.
Read More +
Employer’s Inaccurate Statement About Benefits Eligibility Results in Over $90,000 in Damages -
Doctor Who? Complainant Cannot Generally Rely on Self-Diagnosis When Trying to Establish an Invisible Disability
March 2016
A recent decision of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Cummings v. Nenan Dane Zaa Deh Zona Family Services Society, demonstrates that a complainant cannot rely as a general matter on a self-diagnosis when trying to establish a mental disability or a disability that is not self-evident. Objective, credible medical evidence is generally required.
Read More +
Doctor Who? Complainant Cannot Generally Rely on Self-Diagnosis When Trying to Establish an Invisible Disability -
Employers Not Obligated to Accommodate Personal Choices – Including Breastfeeding
February 2016
The right to breastfeed in public has made headlines of late, but the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Flatt v. Attorney General of Canada, 2015 FCA 250 makes it clear that choosing to breastfeed in most instances is just that – a choice, and not one that will necessarily be protected by human rights legislation in the context of work obligations.
Read More +
Employers Not Obligated to Accommodate Personal Choices – Including Breastfeeding