Resources: Human Rights
-
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 +
-
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 +
-
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 +
-
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 +
-
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 +
-
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 +
-
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 +
-
Cancer Patient’s Employment Goes Up In Smoke After Tribunal Dismisses complaint Alleging Discrimination for Marijuana Use on the Job: French v. Selkin Logging Ltd., 2015 BCHRT 101 (Blasina)
February 2016
John French claimed his employer, Selkin Logging Ltd., discriminated against him in employment on the ground of physical disability when he was discharged for refusing to give up smoking marijuana at the workplace.
Read More +
-
Tribunal Costs Award Goes Against Complainant
December 2015
A recent decision in Singh v. Revera Home Health, [2015] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 800 by Chair Bernd Walter of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal will be of interest to users of the human rights system, particularly in jurisdictions like British Columbia or Ontario which have a “direct access” model.
Read More +
-
$75,000 award for injury to dignity = “patently unreasonable”
December 2015
In January 2014, we reported on Kelly v. University of British Columbia (No. 4), 2013 BCHRT 302, a case in which the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) more than doubled its previous record for injury to dignity damages by awarding the complainant $75,000 (the “Tribunal Decision”).
Read More +