Local and global data breaches remain headline news. From Facebook’s disclosure of its sharing of millions of users’ profiles (without their consent) to the recent data breach involving the Nova Scotia government’s Internal Services website, awareness is growing about privacy rights, how people share data, and how personal information is protected.
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.
Workers’ Compensation generally operates like a form of insurance in that it provides wage replacement and medical benefits to employees who are injured in the course of their employment.
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.
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.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal in Attorney General of Canada v Mullin and Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, 2016 NBCA 31, restored an original denial of compensation for a claim of gradual onset mental stress issued by WorkSafe NB.
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.