Skip to Content

Duty to Accommodate

Upcoming conferences on labour, employment, human rights, privacy, immigration, pensions & benefits law

The table below contains a comprehensive list of the upcoming workplace law (employment, labour, human rights, pensions, privacy and immigration) conferences in Canada in 2011. The full names of the service providers, and links to their sites, are at the bottom of the page.

 read more »

The Top 10 Human Rights Cases in Canada

Lancaster House is continuing its "Top 10" theme for audioconferences. This time its an audioconference on March 3, 2011 addressing The Top 10 Human Rights Cases. The cases and the issues they address (quoted from Lancaster) are:  read more »

Employer not required to hold corporate reorganization in abeyance pending resolution of employee's disability

Jurisdiction: - Canada/Federal

Tutty v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 57

Postscript: Jennifer M. Shepherd and Gulu Punia at the Fasken Martineau office in Calgary have prepared the following summary of this decision:  "Accommodation Does Not Prevent Corporate Reorganization" (February 1, 2011).

Employer engaged in discriminatory action under Workers Comp Act by placing employee on STIIP, reducing income

Jurisdiction: - British Columbia
Sector: - Health Care

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 »

"Trade Union Responsibility Under S.13 & 14 of the Human Rights Code"

Jurisdiction: - British Columbia
Sector: - Unions

"Trade Union Responsibility Under S.13 & 14 of the Human Rights Code" is the title of a paper written by Shanti P. Reda and Stephanie T. Mayor, lawyers at Black Gropper in Vancouver.

The authors presented the paper at the 2010 CLEBC Human Rights Conference in Vancouver on November 4, 2010.

BC Court of Appeal finds Coast Mountain Bus Company's Attendance Management Program to be discriminatory

Jurisdiction: - British Columbia
Sector: - Transportation

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.

In doing so, the appeal court overturned the chambers judge's 2009 decision, which I wrote about here, and restored the BC Human Rights Tribunal's February 2008 decision on this point.  read more »

"Family Status: Evolving Trends and the Need for Novel Accommodation"

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

Jurisdiction: - Canada/Federal

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 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 »