Though employers are legally responsible to maintain a healthy and safe workplace, that responsibility must be weighed against an individual’s right to privacy regarding his or her medical conditions. As such, if an employer has a legitimate purpose tied to the employer- employee relationship, it may be justified in requesting medical information regarding an employee. That being said, the extent of the information to be divulged should be limited to the extent to which the employee can perform his or her job function, and not necessarily the nature of the illness or injury.
Archive for the ‘Human Rights Code’ Category
November 7th, 2011
Do Human Rights Bodies Have Jurisdiction to Award Legal Costs to the Successful Party?
In legal proceedings that have been commenced in court, the party who is successful at trial is generally entitled to recover a portion of their legal costs from the opposing party.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently considered the question of whether a party who has succeeded at a hearing at the Canadian Human Rights Commission should also be awarded a percentage of their legal expenses, to be paid by the other side. More specifically, the court considered whether the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act which authorize the Tribunal to “compensate the victim for any expenses incurred as a result of the discriminatory practice” permit an award of legal costs.
The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the Tribunal had no authority to award legal costs, since “costs” are to be distinguished from “compensation” and “expenses.” The court further commented that the lower court decision, which would have permitted a costs award, made its decision based on what it thought was a beneficial policy outcome, rather than engaging in a proper legal analysis.
This decision will hopefully encourage the government to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, and other provincial human rights legislation, to permit human rights bodies to award costs. This way, employees with valid human rights complaints will be encouraged to continue bringing them, and employers would be able to recover legal costs from employees who initiate frivolous human rights complaints.
August 31st, 2011
If an employee has been terminated, and one reason for the termination relates to a prohibited ground of discrimination, such as ethnic origin, religion or gender, the employee would be entitled to additional compensation from the employer. The employee has the burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, on a balance of probabilities. If the employee is able to do so, the burden then shifts to the employer to prove, also on a balance of probabilities, that the reasons for termination were unrelated to any prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Direct evidence of discrimination is not required in order for an employee to be successful on this type of claim. The decision-maker is permitted to draw an inference that discrimination occurred based on the facts presented.
An employee who believes they have been subjected to a discriminatory termination from his or her employment has the option of commencing a claim in the civil courts or at the Human Rights Tribunal.
The Human Rights Tribunal has the authority to award a wide range of remedies to the individual whose human rights have been breached. Some of these remedies have included requiring the employer to write a letter of apology to the employee, and to require the employer to complete a session of training with a human rights lawyer.
