discrimination

Subscribe to discrimination

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 Background…

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

Special thanks to co-presenters, Krissy Katzenstein and Kaitlin Thompson.

With a surge in layoffs taking place over the past year, many of those originally hired to diversify the workplace have been impacted, and studies show that inclusion, diversity and equity (ID&E) professionals have been affected by layoffs at a higher rate than others. The…

In City of Toronto v. CUPE, Local 79, the Ontario Divisional Court reaffirmed that employers may provide less compensation to an employee who works reduced hours due to a disability without violating the Human Rights Code (“Code”). In this case, the employer discontinued its past practice of permitting employees working part-time hours to remain in the full-time bargaining unit. The change meant that the grievor, who worked part-time hours as an accommodation for his disabilities, suffered a reduction in his benefit entitlements. The Court held that the reduction to the grievor’s benefit entitlements was not discriminatory under the Code.
Continue Reading Less Benefits for Less Work is Not Discrimination – Reaffirmed by Divisional Court

The #MeToo and Times Up movements have led to significant cultural shifts and a collective call to action to end sexual harassment and related forms of exploitation. Since many of the high profile allegations involved abuse of power and quid pro quo demands in the context of employment relationships, the impact on employers has been profound.
Continue Reading Not Just South of the Border: Canadian Employers Should Expect More Gender-Based Disputes

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

In Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board  (“Talos“), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) held that statutory provisions permitting employers to reduce or discontinue employees’ benefits after they reach age 65 is discriminatory and contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter “). Consequently, employers should review their benefits plans, and consider whether it may be necessary to adjust or eliminate such age-based distinctions. …
Continue Reading HRTO Rules Legislation Permitting Different or No Benefits For Employees 65+ is Unconstitutional

As stories of workplace harassment and discrimination permeate the news and social media accounts, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has expanded the scope of provincial human rights legislation to impose liability on co-workers – even when those co-workers have different employers.
Continue Reading Supreme Court of Canada Expands Workplace Discrimination Protection to Cover Non-Employees

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

We are living in uncertain and quickly changing times.  Most recently, on January 27, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) that suspends entry into the United States for 90 days of certain aliens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.  For more information about the EO and its immigration and mobility …

Does the workplace extend into cyberspace?  In a precedent setting decision with potentially far-reaching implications, a labour arbitrator has found an employer liable for failing to protect its workers from harassment and discrimination in customer posts on the employer’s Twitter account (Toronto Transit Commission and ATU, Local 113, 2016 CarswellOnt 10550).  Employers using social media to communicate with clients, customers or the general public may need to rethink how to they respond to uncivil, abusive or threatening online posts targeting their workers.
Continue Reading Are Employers Responsible for Protecting Their Employees on Social Media? “Yes” According to a Recent Decision