In a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, General Motors of Canada Limited v. Johnson, 2013 ONCA 502, it was confirmed that an employee’s honest belief that they are being discriminated against is not, in and of itself, a sufficient basis on which to find workplace harassment and discrimination.
Sanderson v. Muskeg Lake Cree Nation, [2013] C.L.A.D. No. 202 (August 5, 2013)
Upon facing a 1.6 million dollar deficit, the Respondent performed a staffing review and decided to delete the complainant’s position in human resources. The Complainant had a degree in social work and a social worker position was available with an intended future HR component, so the position was offered to the complainant with no change in pay.
Across Canada, there is a trend in human rights law to increase protections for transgendered individuals. Last year, Ontario and Manitoba joined the Northwest Territories in expressly including “gender identity” as a prohibited ground of discrimination under their human rights legislation. Ontario also included “gender expression” as a prohibited ground. In addition, Nova Scotia in 2012 added “gender identity” and “gender expression” to its Human Rights Act to protect transgendered persons from discrimination.
A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision may have implications for pension reform a cross the country, including in New Brunswick. In O’Neill v General Motors of Canada, 2013 ONSC 4654 (“O’Neill”), the employer, General Motors of Canada (“GM”), substantially reduced the health care and life insurance benefits of former salaried and executive employees after they had retired. The central issue was whether GM was entitled to reduce the benefits of retirees.
An employer dismissed its employee without cause and provided him with 6 months’ severance pay. A labour arbitrator decided that the employee’s allegation of unjust dismissal was made out because the Canada Labour Code (CLC) only permitted dismissals for cause. The decision of Redlon Agencies Ltd. v. Norgren, 2005 FC 804 (“Redlon”), was cited for this premise.
While employers may believe that they have a broad right to regulate what employees wear in the workplace, this is not the case. The question of what requirements an employer can impose on an employee’s appearance can actually be quite complex because the imposition of dress codes create a tension between an employee’s right to look the way they want and the employer’s business interest in regulating appearances. Unless an employer can provide an objective explanation of why the dress code is necessary, arbitrators typically find in favour of employees’ interests in self-expression.
On Sept. 19, 2004, the fishing vessel Ryan’s Commander departed Bay de Verde, N.L., for a trip to its home port of St. Brendan’s, N.L., but it was never to arrive. In heavy seas off Cape Bonavista, the vessel capsized, forcing the crew of five to abandon ship.
Cowling v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, 2012 AHRC 12, offers an important lesson to employers: terminating an employee on the basis of age comes with a hefty price tag. In this case, the employee was not only reinstated, but was also awarded five years of past wages in addition to general damages of $15,000!
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Cruden, 2013 FC 520 (May 21, 2013), the complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability as she had been denied a posting in Afghanistan by her employer, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), due to her having type 1 diabetes.
Directors of corporations could find themselves on the hook for unpaid employee wages, vacation benefits, and administrative penalties issued against the corporation, in light of upcoming changes to the New Brunswick Employment Standards Act (the “ESA”).