accommodation

Subscribe to accommodation via RSS

Special thanks to our former articling student, Eloise Somera.

In British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) v. Gibraltar Mines Ltd., 2023 BCCA 168 (“Gibraltar Mines“), the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s decision that a change in employment terms is not a necessary precondition to a finding of prima facie discrimination based on family status.

The Relevant Legal Tests

In Moore v. British Columbia (Minister of Education), 2012 SCC 61 (“Moore“), the Supreme Court of Canada outlined the test for establishing discrimination in the workplace:

  • The employee must first demonstrate prima facie discrimination by proving that:
    • they have a characteristic protected under human rights legislation;
    • they have experienced an adverse impact; and
    • the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact.
  • If an employee establishes prima facie discrimination, the burden then shifts to the employer to justify its requirement as a bona fide occupational requirement that cannot be accommodated without undue hardship.

In conjunction with this general test, the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Health Sciences Assoc. of B.C. v. Campbell River and North Island Transition Society, 2004 BCCA 260 (“Campbell River”) elaborated on what is required to prove prima facie discrimination based on family status. The Campbell River test requires an employee to prove:

  • a change in a term or condition of employment by the employer; and
  • that the change resulted in a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation.

The Campbell River test was reaffirmed in Envirocon Environmental Services, ULC v. Suen, 2019 BCCA 46 (“Suen”).

Factual BackgroundContinue Reading A Change in Employment Terms is No Longer Required to Constitute Prima Facie Family Status Discrimination – The British Columbia Court of Appeal Clarifies

2020 has posed unprecedented challenges for Canadian Employers. We know that in addition to keeping your employees safe and maintaining business continuity, it’s a challenge to keep track of all the changes to the employment law landscape in Canada.

These two, 60 minute virtual sessions are designed to help you stay abreast of what changed…

Recreational cannabis is very much in the spotlight as the date for legalization approaches. Yet issues related to employee use of medical cannabis are still front and centre for many employers, as demonstrated by a pair of recent arbitration decisions: Re IBEW, Local 1620 and Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers Assn. Inc. (Uprichard) (2017), 281 LAC (4th) 246 (“Lower Churchill 1”) and Re Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers Assn. Inc. and IBEW, Local 1620 (Tizzard) 2018 Carswell Nfld 198 (“Lower Churchill 2”).
Continue Reading Inability to Monitor Residual Impairment From Medical Cannabis May Constitute Undue Hardship

Following the Senate’s historic vote in favour of Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, the Federal Government announced yesterday that recreational marijuana will become legal on October 17, 2018. In anticipation of Bill C-45 becoming law, the provinces have begun preparing a framework for regulating the production, distribution, sale, possession and consumption of cannabis. Ontario’s response is Bill 174. With legalization fast approaching, we outline below key aspects of Bill 174 and steps to help employers prepare for the new reality.
Continue Reading Cannabis Becomes Legal on October 17, 2018 – Is Your Workplace Ready?

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently left intact a lower court decision that supports employers in seeking an independent medical examination (“IME”) in certain circumstances. In Bottiglia v. Ottawa Catholic School Board, 2017 ONSC 2517, the Ontario Divisional Court held that an employee’s duty to accommodate may permit, or even require, the employer to ask for a second medical opinion where the employer has a reasonable and bona fide reason to question the adequacy and reliability of the information provided by its employee’s medical expert.
Continue Reading Value of IME in Accommodation Process Underscored by Ontario Courts

In a recent decision, Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) held that the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) reasonably concluded that a worker who tested positive for drugs following a workplace accident was terminated because he breached the employer’s drug policy and not for discriminatory reasons. This decision is a welcome result for employers faced with safety risks due to substance use in their workplace.
Continue Reading Proactive Anti-Drug Policy Not Discriminatory: Supreme Court of Canada

On June 19, 2017, five years after “gender identity” and “gender expression” were added as protected grounds of discrimination in Ontario’s Human Rights Code, the Federal government has added “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Continue Reading Federal Government Adds “Gender Identity” And “Gender Expression” to Canadian Human Rights Act

In the recent decision of Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board v. Fair, 2016 ONCA 421, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) upheld the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s 2013 decision to reinstate an employee, more than 10 years after her employment was terminated. By the time of the ONCA’s decision, almost 15 years had passed since the original termination.

The ONCA’s decision may encourage other decision-makers to order reinstatement as a remedy in discrimination cases. The decision also highlights the importance of considering all possible positions, vacant or not, in order to meet the duty to accommodate employees with disabilities.Continue Reading More Reinstatements on the Horizon in Discrimination Cases?

The first half of 2016 has already brought significant developments in employment law in the United States, triggering changes that companies with operations in the US must implement and plan for now. From final Department of Labor regulations increasing the salary requirements for exempt employees, to the new federal trade secrets law that will require updates to confidentiality agreements, in-house counsel and HR professionals have to develop best practices and strategies to navigate and comply with several new initiatives today. How can you help “save the day” for your company?

Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar – How to Be Your Company’s Superhero: The Top US Employment Developments You Need to Know for 2016

Introduction

An employee’s use of intoxicants, like marijuana, can adversely affect the work environment by:

  • compromising the ability of employees to perform their job duties;
  • threatening the health and safety of the employee and his or her co-workers; and
  • undermining the employer’s reputation.

It is no surprise, then, that employees who are found to be under the influence at work often face discipline.

Yet, the rise of marijuana as a treatment for disabling medical conditions (such as epilepsy, chronic pain or post-traumatic stress disorder) has caused this once relatively “clear” issue to become more complex.
Continue Reading Going Green: Medical Marijuana and the Ontario Human Rights Code