Human Rights Damages Award $200,000

Posted by Johannes Schenk on October 5th, 2017 — Posted in Employment Law, Human Rights Law, Uncategorized

Well there’s some teeth. O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods Ltd., 2015 HRTO 675 (CanLII) concerns an employer’s sexual assault and harassment on employees. The workers were from Mexico on temporary permits and were threatened with deportation if they did not accede to the employer’s harassment.

Safety Concerns and Human Rights

Posted by Johannes Schenk on September 27th, 2017 — Posted in Employment Law, Human Rights Law, Labour Law

Singh c. Montréal Gateway Terminals Partnership (CP Ships Ltd./Navigation CP ltée), 2016 QCCS 4521 (CanLII), concerns balancing human rights considerations with safety concerns. The stevedoring work environment requires hard hats and safety concerns in that environment overrule human rights considerations.

26 Months Reasonable Notice Awarded

Posted by Johannes Schenk on May 15th, 2017 — Posted in Employment Law, Human Rights Law, Labour Law

Source: CanLII – 2016 ONCA 79 (CanLII)

Keenan v. Canac Kitchens Ltd., 2016 ONCA 79 (CanLII), concerns the notice period awarded to long term, 60 year old sales and service representatives. There is no 24 month cap on notice periods.

Probationary Employee Rights

Posted by Johannes Schenk on January 16th, 2017 — Posted in Employment Law, Human Rights Law, Labour Law, Uncategorized

Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority), 2017 BCSC 42, deal with probationary employee termination rights. Surprising that this case was actually litigated given the very small amount the claim was worth. Employer termination rights are limited and the employee must be given a fair and reasonable consideration.

Workplace Accommodation is a Quasi-Constitutional Right

Posted by Johannes Schenk on December 21st, 2016 — Posted in Employment Law, Human Rights Law, Labour Law, Uncategorized

Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail c. Caron, 2015 QCCA 1048 (CanLII), concerns accommodation of an injured employee. The Court in this case says that the human rights legislation supersedes all other legislation and is quasi-constitutional in nature. The employer cannot remove themselves from the human rights regime on the basis of other legislation.