Employer engaged in discriminatory action under Workers Comp Act by placing employee on STIIP, reducing income
In Emergency and Health Services Commission v. Wheatley, 2010 BCSC 1769, the BC Supreme Court denied the employer's request to quash a decision of the BC Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal ("WCAT").
In the decision (WCAT-2008-03840), which was delivered on December 19, 2008, WCAT found that the Emergency and Health Services Commission (the "Employer") had engaged in discriminatory action under s. 151 of the BC Workers Compensation Act, against one of its employees, Michael Wheatley.
As set out in the court's decision: read more »
Brian D. Mulroney, a lawyer at Borden Ladner Gervais, wrote a paper entitled, "Recent Developments in Employment Law: Family Status Discrimination" for the firm's 13th Annual Labour & Employment Group Symposium.
BC Court of Appeal finds Coast Mountain Bus Company's Attendance Management Program to be discriminatory
In a decision issued on October 15, 2010 - Coast Mountain Bus Company Ltd. v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers of Canada
(CAW-Canada), Local 111, 2010 BCCA 447 - the BC Court of Appeal found Coast Mountain Bus Company's Attendance Management Program to be discriminatory.
Tribunal orders CNR to reinstate three female employees who declined transfers because they had young children
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued three companion decisions last week in which they ordered the Canadian National Railway to reinstate three female employees who had been terminated when they declined temporary transfers from Jasper, Alberta to Vancouver, BC because they had young children.
The Tribunal found that the employees had been discriminated against on the basis of "family status".
CNR was also required to pay damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering and wilful and reckless conduct.
The decisions are: read more »
Two lawyers at Gowlings -Jennifer Vermiere (Vancouver) and Myriane Le François (Montréal) - have written a paper entitled, "Family Status: Evolving Trends and the Need for Novel Accommodation" (2010).
Discrimination based on "family status" where Canada Border Services refused to modify schedule for mother of two
In a decision issued last month - Johnstone v. Canada Border Services, 2010 CHRT 20 - the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ("CHRT") found discrimination based on "family status" where Canada Border Services refused to modify the work schedule for an employee who was the mother of two young children but who wanted to still have full-time hours.
The decision re-affirms that the scope of "family status" in human rights legislation can encompass childcare responsibilities.
Law firm Oglivy Renault has written a good a summary of the decision ("Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Weighs In on Accommodating Employee Childcare Obligations") which can be found here.
Both parties have apparently filed an application with the Federal Court of Canada for judicial review of the decision, Ms. Johnstone on the basis that the CHRT should have awarded her reimbursement for her legal fees. read more »
"Accommodation of Mental Disabilities in B.C." (June 2010) is the title of a paper written by Taryn Mackie. Ms. Mackie is a lawyer at Bull Housser Tupper in Vancouver, BC.
The Table of Contents set out the following topics:
- What Constitutes a Mental Disability under the Human Rights Code
- Properly Assessing the Disability
- The Employer's Duty to Make Inquiries
- Determining the Nature and Extent of the Accommodation
- The Employee's Obligations with respect to Accommodation
- Case Example: ADGA Group Consultants Inc. v. Lane
- Terminating Employment When Accommodation is Not Possible or is Unsuccessful