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 →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 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 →How do you handle a situation involving an employee that complained about you to the Human Rights Tribunal or to the Labour Board? What do you do? You’re going to feel awkward – especially if you have a small business. Do you ignore them? What do you tell management? Do you have a meeting? Do you advise everyone? Do you advise no one? Even if the complaint is frivolous, do you cover up? Here is a good case that tells this story. In the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal case of Chan v. Tai-Pain Vacations, Ms. Chan, alleged that her former
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →In Courtland v. Roseland Public School, an application was filed with Human Rights under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code. The Application alleged discrimination in educational services because of reprisal. The applicant alleged that he was “accused” of engaging in an exchange of touching with another student. It also alleges the applicant was asked to begin to use a separate washroom from the other students. After the application was filed, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application did not appear to allege a ground or area of discrimination under
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →