Money: Ontario human rights tribunal orders employer to pay $120,000 in damages to worker it didn’t even hire - PressFrom - Canada
  •   
  •   
  •   

Money Ontario human rights tribunal orders employer to pay $120,000 in damages to worker it didn’t even hire

16:00  09 october  2019
16:00  09 october  2019 Source:   financialpost.com

Labour ministry investigating fatal industrial accident at Fiera Foods

  Labour ministry investigating fatal industrial accident at Fiera Foods Ontario’s Ministry of Labour is investigating the death of another worker at Fiera Foods, the industrial bakery in North York that was the subject of an undercover Toronto Star investigation two years ago. The worker is the fifth to die at the company or one of its affiliates in an industrial accident since 1999. Police said they were contacted early Wednesday afternoon about a medical emergency on Marmora St., where Fiera’s main facility is located. The Ministry of Labour was subsequently notified of an industrial accident, according to a spokesperson for the Toronto Police Service.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (French: Tribunal des droits de la personne de l’ Ontario ) is an administrative tribunal in Ontario , Canada that hears and determines applications brought under the Ontario Human Rights Code

Human Rights Law in Ontario . Blog by Human Rights Lawyer Wade R. Poziomka. Vice-Chair Mark Hart ordered Presteve Foods and Mr. Pratas to pay damages to O.P. T . for compensation for Even though the award is proportionate to existing HRTO jurisprudence given the unprecedented facts as

a close up of a piece of paper: The human rights tribunal has as an essentially unlimited ability to order payment of lost income. © Brent Lewin/Bloomberg files The human rights tribunal has as an essentially unlimited ability to order payment of lost income.

A recent award from Ontario’s human rights tribunal should have employers carefully reviewing their HR policies and emailing their employment lawyers. 

Muhammad Haseeb, a university graduate in engineering, has been awarded over $120,000 by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in a discrimination in employment application against Imperial Oil. What makes this case particularly interesting is that Haseeb never actually worked for Imperial Oil. The discrimination in question was the company’s reneging on a job offer.

A closer look at Chiarelli's denial of allegations

  A closer look at Chiarelli's denial of allegations Ottawa Coun. Rick Chiarelli personally responded to allegations over the past month of inappropriate behaviour toward former staffers and job applicants. His denial of the allegations was expected. But some of his statements warrant further examination. Chiarelli argues allegations should be before rights tribunalAmong the various pronouncements Chiarelli made in his statement, he argued the allegations against him "related to workplace gender discrimination or workplace sexual harassment are not matters that are properly placed before the city's integrity commissioner.

Human Rights Tribunal Permits Employer to Reap Benefits of a Clear Violation of the ESA, as it Employers do not require a reason to end a temporary foreign worker ’s employment and when that Vice-Chair Mark Hart ordered Presteve Foods and Mr. Pratas to pay damages to O.P. T . for

The Tribunal ordered : the employer to pay , 000 to Ms. Bento in general damages plus lost wages for the discrimination she experienced; and. Tribunal orders , 000 in compensation for workplace sexual harassment survivor. G.M. v. X Tattoo Parlour 2018 HRTO 201. G.M. was 15 years old when

The case involved a hiring policy requiring applicants to prove they were eligible to work in Canada on a permanent basis. Haseeb would have been eligible for a work permit for a job at Imperial Oil but he was neither a Canadian citizen nor permanent resident. In his application, he stated — falsely — that he was in fact eligible to work on a permanent basis. This led to a job offer. But when Imperial Oil asked for proof of citizenship or permanent residency, he could not provide it. As a result, Imperial Oil rescinded the offer.

Before the human rights tribunal the company argued that the offer was rescinded because of Haseeb’s dishonesty, not his lack of citizenship. The tribunal held that although Haseeb may have been dishonest, the discriminatory policy the company followed was enough to constitute a violation of Ontario’s Human Rights Code. What discriminatory policy is that, you may ask? The employer distinguished between candidates based on whether or not they were Canadian citizens. The tribunal ruled that this distinction was not a bona fide occupational requirement. Though it is legitimate not to hire someone because they lied, if the reason they lied was to avoid discriminatory treatment, the tribunal held, the lie is justified and the question illegal.

Trudeau government seeks judicial review in decision to compensate First Nations kids

  Trudeau government seeks judicial review in decision to compensate First Nations kids Trudeau government seeks judicial review in decision to compensate First Nations kidsThe Attorney General of Canada filed an application to seek a judicial review with the Federal Court today — just two weeks before the federal election and days before the Oct. 7 deadline for filing an appeal.

Human Rights Tribunal Permits Employer to Reap Benefits of a Clear Violation of the ESA, as it applies to Unpaid Internships in Age Discrimination Case. As a result of the failure to accommodate the employer was ordered to pay the Applicant fifteen weeks’ lost wages and , 000 .00 as general

Human Rights Tribunal Permits Employer to Reap Benefits of a Clear Violation of the ESA, as it applies to As a result of the failure to accommodate the employer was ordered to pay the Applicant fifteen weeks’ lost wages and , 000 .00 as general damages for the pain, humiliation and loss of

Related video: Stressed at work? Your health is at risk [Provided by Breakfast Television] 

Under Ontario human rights law, successful applicants are put in the position they would have been in but for the discriminatory action. Haseeb successfully argued that he was entitled to be paid lost income for the four years — yes, four years — his case took to be heard and decided. On top of that, he was awarded $15,000 as compensation for injury to his dignity, feelings and self-respect.

In recent years, some in the employment law community have called for the tribunal to increase its awards for cases of egregious discriminatory behaviour against vulnerable workers. Decisions like the Haseeb case suggest these calls have been at least partially answered. In 2013, the tribunal awarded a supervisor $420,000, almost 10 years of back pay, against a school board that discriminated against her for her disability. In 2015, two temporary foreign workers who were severely mistreated and sexually harassed were awarded $200,000 in damages. In 2018, a retail worker was awarded $200,000 in damages for sexual harassment and solicitation by her employer. These are only a few examples, and there are sure to be many more to come.

Ottawa tells court First Nation child welfare compensation order could cost $8 billion

  Ottawa tells court First Nation child welfare compensation order could cost $8 billion A senior federal official says a human rights tribunal ruling ordering Ottawa to compensate First Nation children apprehended through the on-reserve child welfare system could cost the federal government up to $8 billion, according to Federal Court records. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered Ottawa in early September to compensate all First Nation children removed from their homes and communities through the child welfare system since Jan. 1, 2006. The ruling also covers the Yukon.

. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has not substantially addressed damages in lieu of reinstatement. Other forums have made such awards and below are two cases, which could serve as examples for how the Tribunal may determine such damages in the future. In applying the Canada

Human Rights Law in Ontario . Blog by Human Rights Lawyer Wade R. Poziomka. If the Tribunal determined he or she would have, damages for lost wages should be awarded. Lina’s “internship” or offer of free work would not have met the criteria set out in the Ontario Employment Standards Act.

Two important mechanisms available at the tribunal that are not available in court are the ability to order reinstatement, as well as an essentially unlimited ability to order payment of lost income. The tribunal, which prides itself for being accessible to vulnerable people, has therefore become a critical forum for employees seeking redress for discriminatory actions from their current and former employers. And accessibility to it has widened significantly since 2008, when the Human Rights Commission lost its gatekeeping role so that any case can now proceed directly to the tribunal. Since then, the number of human rights applications has exploded, reaching 4,500 applications in 2018. Though this has led to much longer wait times for hearings — Haseeb’s four years, for example — it has also meant that more cases are being heard and more damages awards are being issued.

Awards as high as Haseeb’s are still relatively rare. But employers in the province may need to recalibrate the financial risk they face for violating the Human Rights Code. One thing is clear: discrimination has become a very costly mistake in Ontario.

Jon Pinkus practices labour and employment law at Samfiru Tumarkin LLP in Toronto.

Are you on LinkedIn? Follow Microsoft News Canada and keep up with the latest industry news, career, jobs and tech updates. Connect with us now!


Competition tribunal rules in favour of Vancouver airport on in-flight food case .
OTTAWA — The federal Competition Tribunal has come down in favour of the Vancouver Airport Authority in a case involving catering companies that provide airplane food. The quasi-judicial body on Thursday dismissed a claim by the Competition Bureau that argued the airport operator effectively dampened competition among in-flight caterers. In a case launched in 2016, the competition commissioner had argued the airport authority exploited its market position by denying new airplane caterers access to the airport, resulting in higher prices and poorer service.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks
usr: 33
This is interesting!