In the case of Anderson v. Tasco found here, Tasco (the employer) asked a judge to remove certain parts of the plaintiff’s lawsuit – most particularly they sought to persuade the judge that a Court did not have jurisdiction over allegations relating to an alleged failure to accommodate. The employer also asked the judge to agree that the failure to accommodate allegations failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, they were untimely and the these allegations are scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious. The primary argument advanced by the employer was that that the Court was without jurisdiction to hear a
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →This is the case of a woman that was fired from her job after she revealed that she had breast cancer. The case can be found here with the amount awarded to her found here. Elsa worked as a leasing agent for a property management company. In the fall of 2008, Elsa noticed a suspicious lump on her breast, it was found to be breast cancer and she was ordered to have surgery right away. A note was provided from her doctor that said that she will “need to be off of work indefinitely effective immediately.” Elsa met with
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →A friend of mine was kind enough to send me this story today. Mary Nolan from the Hamilton Spectator reported this story today. Normally I do not believe in duplicating content from other sites onto employment-law.ca but this story was too interested not to . Thanks to Mary for this great article. McDonald’s tells mom to stop breastfeeding June 04, 2010 Mary K. Nolan The Hamilton Spectator (Jun 4, 2010) A Hamilton mother is not McHappy about the treatment she received this week at a local fast food outlet. Colleen Frank, 28, says she was nursing her five-week-old son in
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →In the case of Osvald v. Videocomm Technologies (read here) the Human Rights Tribunal found that the employer terminated Sylvia in part because of factors related to her pregnancy. Videocomm asserted that Sylvia was terminated during her three month probationary period for performance related issues and not because of her pregnancy. However, the Tribunal found that while the reasons for termination were examined during the course of the hearing, the evidence established that factors related to Osvald’s pregnancy and subsequent miscarriage did in fact play a part in the decision to terminate her employment with Videocomm. The Story Sylvia Osvald
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →Civil courts have the statutory authority now to adjudicate Human Rights Code matters and award remedies under Section 46.1(1) of the Human Rights Code since June of 2008. Section 46.1(1) notes that if, in a civil proceeding in a court, the court finds that a party to the proceeding has infringed a right under Part 1 of another party to the proceeding, the court may make either of the orders, or both: 1) An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement,
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →***PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS CASE CONTAINS EXTREMELY VULGAR LANGUAGE. In the case of Cheryl Khan v. 820302 Ontario Inc. cob as Lynx Trucking Co. Transportation and Leasing and Lynn Thompkins which can be found here. The trucking company was ordered by the Human Rights Tribunal to pay $25,000.00 to the Applicant for a violation to her impairment right to be free from discrimination and harassment and for injury to her dignity, feelings and self respect. In this case, the Applicant Khan began working for Lynx Trucking in September 2007. The Applicant testified that Lynn Thompkins, the personal Respondent, would
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →Bill 107 changed the Ontario Human Rights Code on June 30, 2008. Unfortunately most people who require human rights intervention do not know much, if anything about the human rights code. This quick article will address human rights remedies as well as a few other issues that applicants should be aware of. Since 2008, Ontarians apply directly to the Human Rights Tribunal, not the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which was previously the “gatekeeper” of the Tribunal. The Commission now is more focussed on educating the public and the promotion of issues under the Human Rights Code. Remedial Remedies Under The
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →This Human Rights Decision is a perfect example of why you should speak to a lawyer before making any decisions with respect to pregnant employees. In the case of Jessica Maciel v. Fashion Coiffeurs, the applicant Maciel was hired to work as a receptionist in two related salons operated by the respondents in the Erin Mills Town Centre. At the time she was hired she was just over four months pregnant. She alleges that she advised the manager of the salons that she was pregnant on the first day of her job and was fired shortly thereafter. The human rights
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario awarded 20 year old Jessica Maciel $35,000 this week after her employer fired her for revealing that she was pregnant. The owner of Nino D’Arena salon in Mississauga, Ontario was ordered to pay Ms. Maciel $20,000 in lost wages and maternity leave benefits, as well as $15,000.00 as compensation to her dignity and feelings. The applicant was was four months pregnant when she started to work at the last August. During her job interview she did not mention her pregnancy during her job interview, knowing if she divulged that information she would not have
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →The Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) is provincial law which protects people in Ontario against discrimination and harassment in a variety of areas, including employment. There are currently fifteen (15) prohibited grounds of discrimination in employment under the Code: race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed (religion), sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, handicap, age (18 and over),1 marital status, family status and record of offences. I deal primarily with issues of discrimination in the workplace. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is responsible for dealing with applications brought to it by individuals, groups of individuals, organizations or
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →