We’ve been hearing much talk about the “Great Resignation” – specifically, between April and September 2021, more than 24 million American employees left their jobs, an all-time record. While the same hasn’t yet been seen in Canada, experts speculate that this may just be delayed…
Racism is on the rise as a result of the global pandemic. Concerns about its prevalence prompted Marie-Claude Landry, Chief Commissioner for the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), to issue a statement earlier this month condemning the practice. Landry noted that minority groups, and in particular people of Asian origin, have been the victims of taunts, threats and intimidation in public and online. She went on to make clear that no one should feel threatened or unwelcome because of the colour of their skin or where they some from.
At Rubin Thomlinson we deliver a lot of training on conducting workplace investigations and often the discussion turns to the costs of conducting an investigation, whether it be the monetary costs of an external investigation or the time costs of an internal investigation. These costs are typically balanced with the benefits of conducting an effective investigation, such as allowing employees to be heard, demonstrating a commitment to a respective workplace culture by “walking the talk” of policies, clarifying what actually occurred, and implementing targeted outcomes.
In past blogs, I’ve talked about the duty to accommodate in the context of creed, and specifically about the scope of the ground of creed and how employers could determine whether or not a religious belief was sincerely held. A recent decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta has provided some additional guidance
Last year I blogged about a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that considered the definition and scope of the ground of creed. While the decision laid out a clear analytical framework, the facts of the case were unique and of such specificity that it might have been difficult to see how the
Recently, it seems like all anyone wants to talk about when it comes to transgender inclusivity is bathrooms. Questions about bathrooms dominate recent dialogues and workshops of which I’ve been a part. The US media can’t stop talking about their politicians talking about bathrooms. Large companies like Target are taking positions, leading to praise from
It’s not entirely surprising that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (the OHRT) rendered a decision recently, holding that a miscarriage constitutes a “disability” for human rights purposes. What is perhaps less clear is what this will mean for employers. Winnie Mou brought a human rights application against her former employer, MHPM Project Leaders, alleging discrimination
When discussing workplace complaints and conflicts with clients or while delivering training, I regularly hear that the most challenging situations to address are those which seem to involve competing individual rights. Employers are unsure how to proceed when both parties seem to be making a valid argument under the organization’s policies or the Ontario Human
