Employer Misconduct Results in Moral Damages
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Doyle v. Zochem Inc., 2017 ONCA 130 recently upheld an award of $60,000 in “moral damages” to a former employee for the bad faith manner in which she was dismissed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Doyle v. Zochem Inc., 2017 ONCA 130 recently upheld an award of $60,000 in “moral damages” to a former employee for the bad faith manner in which she was dismissed.
New Brunswick is about to join the bandwagon by adding “family status” as a protected ground in its Human Rights Act. All other jurisdictions in Canada have already made this move.
Yes, it’s 2017, but gender discrimination continues to persist in many workplaces. Discrimination in employment on the basis of gender is contrary to human rights legislation and leaves an employer vulnerable to liability for its wrongful conduct.
The recent arbitration decision in Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1418 v New Brunswick (Justice and Public Safety), 2016 CanLII 50052 (NB LA) (July 28, 2016) highlights the dangers in failing to confront employee “bad” behaviour and being lax with policy enforcement and training.
This year, a Nova Scotia Human Rights Board of Inquiry issued a highly publicized decision on racial profiling. In the case, the Board concluded that a woman had discriminated against on the basis of her race and/or colour when wrongfully accused of shoplifting at a grocery store.
A recent labour arbitration decision out of Ontario considers an employer’s obligation to protect its employees from harassment via an employer’s presence on social media.
Under the Nova Scotia Human Rights framework, a Board of Inquiry must approve any settlement reached after a complaint is referred to a hearing before the Board.
Dealing with employees who take maternity and/or paternity leave and then return to the workplace can be challenging for employers. However, the ability of parents to take maternity and/or paternity leave, and return to their employment, is a legislated right.
The complainant was a unionized employee and his Collective Agreement provided top-up benefits to adoptive parents, but not to biological parents. The Board of Inquiry concluded that the distinction in benefits constituted discrimination on the basis of family status.
In Flatt v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 250 (CanLII), the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) visited the issue of whether the decision to breastfeed one’s child is protected by human rights legislation.