Can I Form My Own Union? Any group of eligible workers in Ontario can form a union. If 40% of the membership signs union membership cards, the Ontario Labour Relations Board will hold a vote to determine whether the union should be certified. A secret ballot is then held. 50% or more votes in favour will cause the union to be certified. The Collective Agreement The terms of the employment relationship between the workers and the company are then determined by the collective agreement. There is no individual right to bargain for wage increases or other terms of employment. This agreement forms the basis for all employment rights and entitlements. Rights on Termination The collective agreement determines all rights and remedies on termination for cause or without cause. If there is termination or other forms of discipline imposed, the worker, by union representation, has the right to grieve the decision. With union support, such a case may proceed to arbitration. At that stage the decision maker has the power to order back pay, reinstatement or any other similar remedy. Reinstatement in this process is generally considered the default remedy when there is no cause for termination found. Just as a common law judge may order additional damages for unfair conduct, the arbitrator may also make such incremental awards for “aggravated” damages. No Right to Sue The union members have no right to sue in the civil courts for an employment dispute. All such issues must go through the grievance process. This is the same for “wrongful dismissal” claims. In the civil courts without union representation, an employee fired without cause can claim damages for lost income in the period of “reasonable notice”. This claim is not allowed for union members. Termination without cause will likely follow a seniority system. The person to be terminated will be allowed only the severance sums set out in the collective agreement and no more. This payment must at least meet the statutory minimum. Disputes with Union Management If there is an issue between the company and the employee, such as an alleged termination for cause, the legal parties in the case are the union and the company. The individual person is a not a party, as they are represented by the union, which has the legal authority to make all decisions in the case. For example, the union may decide the employer’s offer of reinstatement with no back pay is a fair offer to be accepted. The employee may disagree. The union must consult and discuss the issues with the employee but ultimately makes the final call on the offer. The same issue often arises on a termination case which may possible may be headed to arbitration. The union may decide, for whatever reason, not to support the case to proceed to arbitration. It again will certainly consult with and discuss the issues with the employee. Again, however, at the end of the day, it is the union’s final decision to make. Can the Decisions of a Union be Reviewed? The union has an obligation to allow for “fair representation” to its members. There is a potential remedy available to a disgruntled employee who has disagreed with the union’s advocacy. This is a complaint to the Ontario Labour Relations Board of “unfair representation”. These cases are notoriously difficult for the employee to win. Essentially, the worker must show that the union failed to even consider the merits of the case. If the union has consulted outside legal counsel and reviewed the case, there is virtually no chance of success for the employee’s case. Unions do offer certain protections to employees which are not available without their existence. There is a definitely good news and not so good news. Before you sign the union card and before you vote, you should understand both sides. It is always recommended to seek advice from an experienced employment lawyer before taking action that may result in a claim for damages. Contact Elyse Mallins of Devry Smith Frank LLP for advice for both employees and employers on legal workplace issues. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawFebruary 10, 2020September 30, 2020
Fired because of Race? Consider a Human Rights Claim This blog is co-written by our former articling student, Linda Noorafkan. In 2018, a group of eight Caucasian employees of the Spruce Hill Resort and Spa Ltd. (“the Resort”) in British Columbia made a complaint to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), in which they alleged that they had been terminated from their employment because they were not Chinese. The Tribunal found that seven of the employees had been discriminated against on the basis of race and colour, and one employee had been discriminated against on the basis of sex. The Resort was required to pay a total of $113,141.01 as compensation for lost wages and $60,000.00 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, for a total of $173,141.01. The group in Eva obo others v. Spruce Hill Resort and another (“Spruce Hill”) made the claim against the Resort and Mr. Kin Wa Chan. Mr. Chan had recently purchased shares of a company that owned a resort, and as a result, took full control of the resort. The group alleged that they had been discriminated on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin, contrary to s. 13 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code (“Code”). Some employees indicated that they were terminated by the Resort, while others chose to resign from their positions because of the discriminatory working environment. All of the employee complainants left their positions within days of each other. The group alleged that the discrimination occurred over “several months and culminated over several days in August 2016.” One of the employees also alleged that there was one instance of discrimination on the basis of sex by Mr. Chan, contrary to s. 13 of the Code. (1) DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE AND COLOUR With respect to race and colour discrimination, the Tribunal was faced with four main issues: (1) whether Mr. Chan stated that he wanted to replace Caucasian employees with Chinese employees; (2) whether Mr. Chan reduced the hours of Caucasian employees, and instead, provided those hours to Chinese employees; (3) whether some of the employees were fired because they were not Chinese; and (4) whether the employees who resigned did so because of discrimination in the workplace. All four issues were answered in the affirmative by the Tribunal. The Tribunal assessed the credibility of each employee and Mr. Chan, who testified at the hearing. Employee diary entries were also considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that while each employee was credible, Mr. Chan was “less credible than the complainants.” Since Mr. Chan did not have “a detailed recollection of events” and conversations, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the complainants over that of Mr. Chan. The Tribunal found that Mr. Chan had, in fact, stated that he wanted to replace the Caucasian employees with Chinese employees in order to lower labour costs. For example, Mr. Chan was heard: “… yelling and using words to the effect that “white people” were too slow and Chinese workers were faster and cheaper. On other occasions, [one employee] heard Mr. Chan use words to the effect that Canadians are too slow and cost too much, and that Chinese students work, do not complain, and do not need to be paid overtime.” Mr. Chan had also acted on those statements by demoting employees, terminating employees, and consistently expressing his desire to replace Caucasian employees with Chinese employees. The latter resulted in several employees resigning from their positions because of the discriminatory work environment. Despite Mr. Chan’s denials, the Tribunal found that “his stor[ies] d[id] not harmonize with what he actually did, what credible witnesses heard him say, and with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions.” It is important to note that, while the Tribunal concluded that “the Complainants are not members of a group that has been historically discriminated against [,]” the fact of the matter was that they were “subjected to a poisoned work environment due to racism.” The Tribunal considered the 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk in which the court concluded that “the structure of the Code supports an approach that views employment as a context requiring remedy against the exploitation of vulnerability.” As such, to determine the employees’ compensation for injury to dignity, the Tribunal considered that employees are “particularly vulnerable” in contrast to their employers, especially since many employees have few other employment alternatives. (2) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX One of the employees, Ms. Eva, indicated that she was sexually harassed by Mr. Chan during a business trip to China. While Mr. Chan did not dispute the facts of what occurred during the trip, he disputed the interpretation of those events. Instead of booking separate hotel rooms, Mr. Chan had booked one hotel room, which had a bathroom with a glass divide, for him and Ms. Eva. Once Ms. Eva realized this, conflict ensued in the hotel room. Ms. Eva felt that Mr. Chan booked one room because he wanted “sexual favours” from Ms. Eva, while Mr. Chan claimed that he wanted to save money by booking one room. The Tribunal found that Mr. Chan’s actions amounted to sexual harassment, in contravention of the Code. The Tribunal found that Mr. Chan’s evidence was not credible. Rather, it was “more probable than not than Mr. Chan wanted to share a hotel room with Ms. Eva for sexual purposes.” What does this mean for employees and employers? The Tribunal took into account the vulnerability of employees in finding that the employees were discriminated based on race and colour. This decision confirms that an employer’s expressed preference to hire employees of a particular group can constitute discrimination against Caucasians, even though this group has not been historically discriminated against. Although Spruce Hill is a British Columbia decision, the decision and reasoning are consistent with the law in Ontario. If you would like more information or legal advice on this subject, please contact Marty Rabinovitch at 416.446.5826 or marty.rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawOctober 31, 2019July 5, 2023
Denial of Employee Benefits to Working Seniors: A Charter Violation This blog is co-written by our former articling student, Linda Noorafkan. On May 18, 2018, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) rendered its decision with respect to the issue of whether s. 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code (the “Code”), when read alongside s. 44 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”), permitted employers to terminate benefits for employees when they turned 65. In Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board, the Tribunal found that such a termination violated s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it was a form of age discrimination. The section could not be saved under s. 1 of the Charter, and thus, was found to be unconstitutional since it violated the right to equality in a manner that was not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Wayne (Steve) Talos continued to work as a secondary school teacher beyond the age of 65. However, when he turned 65, his extended health, dental, and life insurance benefits were terminated, even though he was still employed on a full-time basis. Mr. Talos heavily relied on the benefits, since they assisted with both his and his family’s medical and other expenses, especially since his wife had become severely ill and was ineligible for other benefits to cover her expenses. The section of the Code on which the employer relied to differentiate the entitlement to employee benefits and pension plans on the basis of age was s. 25(2.1) of the Code, as seen in the following related provisions: Employee benefit and pension plans 25 (1) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed where employment is denied or made conditional because a term or condition of employment requires enrolment in an employee benefit, pension or superannuation plan or fund or a contract of group insurance between an insurer and an employer, that makes a distinction, preference or exclusion on a prohibited ground of discrimination. Same (2) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of sex, marital status or family status is not infringed by an employee superannuation or pension plan or fund or a contract of group insurance between an insurer and an employer that complies with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the regulations thereunder. Same (2.1) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of age is not infringed by an employee benefit, pension, superannuation or group insurance plan or fund that complies with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the regulations thereunder. Mr. Talos took the position that the distinction in age when it came to benefits discriminated against employees who were 65 years and older, in particular since mandatory retirement was prohibited in Ontario through Bill 211 in 2005. As such, Mr. Talos claimed monetary compensation of $100,000 for lost benefits, as well as injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. The Tribunal found that Mr. Talos experienced disadvantage because of his age. The Tribunal concluded that employees who worked beyond age 65 “provide[d] the same labour as they did when they were 64 years of age,” but the former was subjected to the termination of benefits despite the similarities in labour. Despite the employer’s arguments that Mr. Talos was not disadvantaged because his pensions were “generous” enough to ensure that Mr. Talos could “lead an economically viable life during his senior years,” especially since he was a member of a union, the Tribunal found these factors to be irrelevant to whether Mr. Talos’ s. 15 Charter right to equal compensation in the workplace was infringed. Nor did the ESA support the employer’s claims that a long career, being part of a profession, and being a member of a union, were “relevant to the statutory protections afforded to all employees” under the ESA and Code. Rather, the Tribunal determined that the ESA establishes “minimum standards for conduct and conditions of employment without regard to an employee’s access to a collective bargaining process.” Thus, the denial of benefits created by the Code was not due to the standards set out in the ESA, but were solely because of Mr. Talos’ age. Although the employer argued that providing benefits to employees aged 65 and older would challenge the financial viability of workplace benefits, the Tribunal ruled that, when considering all the evidence before it, “the financial viability of workplace benefit plans can be achieved without making the age 65 and older group vulnerable to the loss of employment benefits….” Thus, the Tribunal concluded that s. 1 of the Charter did not save the infringement of Mr. Talos’ equality rights since: … the impugned provisions do not minimally impair the rights of these older workers, as an employer is not required to demonstrate that their exclusion from employment benefits is reasonable or bona fide, or justified on an actuarial basis, or because their inclusion would cause undue hardship. Rather, if the legislature was concerned about financial viability, they could have used “less intrusive means” to address those concerns. Ultimately, the Talos decision has numerous impacts on both employers and employees. As a result of Talos, if an employee claims that they were discriminated on the basis of age, s. 25(2.1) of the Code can no longer be used as a defence by employers to justify the termination of benefits for those aged 65 and older. Could this mean that employees have a greater ability to maintain their employee benefits beyond the age of 65? We will have to see what future jurisprudence and possible legislative change hold for the future. If you would like more information or legal advice on this subject, please contact Marty Rabinovitch at 416.446.5826 or marty.rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawOctober 29, 2019September 30, 2020
When Discrimination is Not Prohibited: Housing Caleb Pheluong, a Vancouver resident, was served eviction papers once his landlord discovered that he intended to have his boyfriend stay over one night. The landlord expressed to him via text message that homosexuality was against her “Christian beliefs” and she could no longer have him living in her house. Is this discrimination? Sexual orientation is a protected ground under Human Rights Codes, and the landlord, in writing, expressed that his sexual orientation was the reason for his eviction. According to the B.C. Human Rights Code, no, it is not unlawful discrimination. And the answer would be no different in Ontario. Both Codes prohibit discrimination in accommodation and list sexual orientation as one of the grounds that are protected. This means, for example, that sexual orientation cannot be a reason for refusing to rent to a tenant. However, the Codes provide an exception for landlords who provide accommodation in dwellings that they also occupy. In Ontario, section 21(1) expresses that landlords who share either a kitchen and/or a bathroom with their tenant are exempt from the prohibitions on discrimination. Sharing a bathroom or kitchen with your landlord or their family takes you out from under the protection of the Human Rights Code and leaves you vulnerable to discrimination without legal recourse. Caleb fell victim to this loophole; he has no right under the law to remain a tenant in his present house or be compensated for the discrimination he faced. If, however, you fall outside this exception, you do have protection under the Code from such discrimination in accommodation. A recent Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision awarded a couple $12,000 for their landlord’s discriminatory attitude and actions when he failed to accommodate their religious practices while he was re-letting the apartment they were vacating. The landlord’s refusal to agree to their requests, such as removing outdoor shoes before entering their prayer space, was held to be discrimination under the Code. Two very different legal outcomes from what appears to be acts of discriminatory conduct from a landlord towards a tenant. What these tenant situations illuminate is the difference in treatment of tenants who rent shared spaces with those who rent self-contained, private spaces. For information or assistance in regards to protections and legal recourse for human rights claims please contact one of our Human Rights Litigation Lawyers. By: Samantha Hamilton, Student-at-Law “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawAugust 24, 2017June 19, 2020
Challenging the Safe Streets Act By: Nicolas Di Nardo A law created in 1999 known as the Safe Streets Act is being challenged by the Fair Change Community Legal Clinic on the basis that it discriminates against people with mental health and addiction issues. Leading this dispute is Gerry Williams, along with the Fair Change Community Legal Clinic. Williams shares his experiences of being homeless and the amount of fines he was given over 9 years while trying to survive. Since then, he has overcome homelessness, has a job and a place to live. Gerry suffered from alcoholism and undiagnosed mental health issues, but is a very different person today. Before he was able to get the help he needed to thrive, he suffered. He managed to be handed $65,000 in fines over 9 years ago while homeless, all of which were given to him through provincial offences and convictions. These included: Loitering Littering Drinking in public Trespassing Gerry determined that approximately $10,000 worth of his tickets were issued through the Safe Streets Act while he was panhandling to survive. This law was intended to limit the aggressive behaviour brought on by people asking for money on the street, which also included squeegeeing. Williams is now part of a constitutional challenge to the Act, which was filed by the legal clinic last Wednesday. Fair Change has spoken up about the issues with this law, stating it is: Impacting people with mental health and addiction issues Costing the public $2 million in court fees and paperwork Fines under the act will likely never be paid Ruined credit scores, limiting opportunity for housing, drivers license, or work after being convicted under the Act Hurts people that are already vulnerable Increases homelessness Poverty remains the most pressing human rights issue in Canada, however, Joanna Nefs says the law is not doing anything to help fix that. Laws that are criminalizing people in poverty does not line up with the goal to end poverty, or the Human Rights Code, which Renu Mandhane, chief Commissioner for the Ontario Human Rights Commission is making reference to the Safe Streets Act as one of those laws. Fair Change is looking for the law to be repealed rather than fighting it, and this is not the first time. MPP Cheri DiNovo tabled private members’ bills in 2015 and 2016 for the Act to be repealed. Please check back to our blog for more update and developments to this story. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm located in Don Mills. If you require representation or have any questions, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP today. You may contact one of the many experienced lawyers on our website or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawJune 26, 2017June 22, 2020
The Fight Against Solitary Confinement By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student The issue of solitary confinement has been long-standing in Canada. Solitary confinement is meant to be ordered on a temporary basis, not on an indefinite one. In recent years, the issue has come to the forefront, after several Canadian inmates committed suicide while in solitary. Ten years ago, Ashley Smith, a 19 year-old inmate in solitary, strangled herself to death in her cell while prison guards watched and videotaped it. Smith spent a total of 1,047 days in solitary confinement, and had been placed on high suicide watch. Unquestionably, Smith’s lengthy stay in solitary was a contributing factor in her suicide. Calls to limit the segregation of prisoners grew much louder after Smith’s 2007 death, but unfortunately, the problem has persisted. Last fall, a prison guard’s tip-off to Ontario’s chief human-rights commissioner revealed that Adam Capay – a 23 year old inmate – had spent over four years in solitary confinement, totalling 1,636 days: segregation analogous to torture. Without question, the rights of those individuals confined to a single cell for such long periods of times violates their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under the Charter, Canadians have the right to life, liberty and security of the person, the right against unfair detainment, and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. In British Columbia, a trial seeking to challenge Canada’s solitary confinement prison policies as “cruel and unusual punishment” is scheduled to begin on July 4, 2017. However, the Liberals are looking to halt this trial. Why? Because the government is finally working on a solution to the inappropriate use of segregation. An application filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia on June 20, 2017 argues that proceeding with the July trial would be a waste of court resources, because the concerns about prolonged segregation are being addressed in new legislation – Bill C-56. So, how are they being addressed? The legislation introduced by the Liberals limits the amount of time federal inmates can be held in segregation cells. If Bill C-56 is passed, inmates would not be allowed to be held more than 15 days in solitary. But before the 15-day limit, Correctional Service Canada will have an 18-month transition period, during which time the cap will be set at 21 days. These proposed time limits will of course be subject to safety and security requirements, and also, it must be ensured that other reasonable alternatives are available. But 15 days is a long time… Most of us have experienced “one-of-those-days,” where whether at work, home, or anywhere, the day seems to go on forever. Imagine 15 of those. In a row. Although the new legislation will limit inappropriate segregation, 15 days still seems to be far too long to be in solitary. Again, the analogy can be drawn to torture. While some argue to lessen the allotment from 15 to 5, others demand a total ban on segregation, calling it cruel and unusual punishment, and thereby a violation of the Charter. (see s. 12) Ultimately, the bill is a step in the right direction. But because the bill has only received its first reading, there is no guarantee that the bill will be enacted. And if it is enacted, its form remains uncertain, as Parliament may choose to amend the legislation. For this reason, those behind the lawsuit – the John Howard Society and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association – want the July 4 trial to proceed. The government’s application to adjourn the trial was heard on Friday in Vancouver. Justice Peter Leask reserved his decision, and the parties are due back in court tomorrow. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full-service law firm located in Don Mills. If you require representation or have any questions, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP today. You may contact one of the many experienced lawyers on our website or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Criminal Law, Human Rights LawJune 26, 2017June 22, 2020
Air Passenger Bill: Does it Really Protect Passenger Rights? Transportation Minister Marc Garneau introduced a Passenger Bill of Rights which is included in a package of amendments to the Canada Transportation Act. This bill is being introduced as a result of the United Airlines incident, where a passenger was dragged from a plane in Chicago after he refused to give up his seat on an overbooked flight. That incident was the first of many for multiple airlines that suffered from negative PR in the last month or so. This bill, known as Bill C-49 or the Passenger Bill of Rights, however, has been said to protect the airlines, not the passengers. The main purpose of the bill is to have the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) set clear standards for how passengers can be treated, which include: Situations where they are denied to board Lost baggage Delays while on the tarmac A passenger rights advocate, Gabor Lukacs, has concerns with this bill. The bill does not outline penalties for companies that do mistreat customers, and complaints must be filed by the person affected, which means that action cannot be taken against airlines for problems such as overbooking of flights. A consumer group labels this bill as ‘useless’ to passengers, as it does not enforce the rights of travellers, and does not include new sanctions against airlines if they were to break the rules. See the full list of concerns here. Canada is well behind in the area of passenger rights, seeing as sixty countries have some form of passenger rights legislation, with the U.S. and E.U. as the only ones with compensation rules established for passengers that get bumped from flights. Unfortunately, with the wording in this legislation, it leaves the Canadian Transportation Agency to create and implement the standards at some point in the future, while our Canadian airlines are suffering in the satisfaction category with Air Canada dead last in North America, and WestJet second-last in the low-cost carrier category. Complaints have increased significantly against Canadian carriers between 2011 and 2016, and if the CTA does not implement a set of rights that protect passengers, they may continue to receive complaints until something is done. If you are in need of representation or have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the lawyers of Devry Smith Frank LLP today at 416-449-1400, or browse our website for more information. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawMay 23, 2017June 23, 2020
General Electric Workers Exposed to Toxic Chemicals for Decades Between 1945 and 2000, General Electric’s factory in Peterborough was the epicentre for many work-related illnesses among employees and retirees, a study of chemical exposures at the plant reveals. This, however, is nothing new. The community has been saying this for quite some time, and the 173-page report confirms this. GE’s plant workers built household appliances all the way to diesel locomotive engines and fuel cells for nuclear reactors. The workers were exposed to more than 3,000 toxic chemicals in the process, some of which include 40 to be cancer-causing. Workers were exposed to these chemicals at levels hundreds of times higher than what is now considered safe, says the report. General Electric allowed workers in the past to handle the toxic substances without protective gear, which they were rarely offered. As they were paid by the piece and not by the hour in the 1980s, there was an incentive to cut corners. Seeing as about 500 lbs. of asbestos was used daily and workers did not have respiratory protection or proper ventilation, it is no wonder these employees have had trouble with their health after being exposed. The managers also knew the harm that these chemicals can cause to people without the proper protection, as early as the 1920s and 1930s. The lead was another huge component that circulated the plant. Workers used about 40,000 lbs. in a week to produce PVC pellets until the 1980s, and also experience daily exposure to: Solvents Welding Fumes Epoxy Resins PCBs Beryllium Uranium Daily exposure to the above without proper protection is extremely dangerous. However, around 2000 is when safety measures were being mandated, and since then, GE’s plant is a smaller operation, and spotless. The report will be used to support occupational disease claims that were previously denied by Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”). Hundreds have filed compensation claims, and unfortunately, Ontario’s worker compensation system does not allow employees to sue their employer when they have been given the ability to claim benefits when they are injured or fall ill because of work. The WSIB has been given 660 compensation claims from GE workers since 2004, with 280 accepted, more than half withdrawn, abandoned or rejected because of insufficient evidence that the conditions were work-related. “Workers that suffered from working within the plant were forced, for many years, to provide proof of their working conditions, only to be told this is anecdotal,” said Sue James, whose father worked at the plant for 30 years and died of lung and spinal cancer, believed to have been caused by exposure to the chemicals used in GE’s plant. A former employee believes he developed colorectal cancer because he worked more than 22 years under asbestos-wrapped pipes, which would occasionally shed while he worked. This employee, Roger Fowler, was one of the former employees who worked on the report. With this investigation drawing some attention, the provincial labour ministry announced it will be setting up an occupational disease response team by the end of the year to focus on chemical exposure prevention and help sick workers file compensation claims. 11 retirees worked as advisers on this report. Together, this committee along with health researchers Bob and Dale DeMatteo, interviewed over 75 former workers to gather information on working conditions and production processes. The data collected from these workers was coupled with data from labour ministry inspection reports, joint health and safety committee minutes, company memos, industrial hygiene literature and other documents, gathered by the union. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we provide a full range of services to suit any need. If you are seeking information or representation for a similar situation, please contact the lawyers of our Health and Safety and Employment Law Teams today. If you require more information please call us today at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Human Rights LawMay 19, 2017June 23, 2020
A Threat to Access-To-Justice in Ontario Legal aid is a central component of the Canadian justice system, and of justice systems elsewhere in the world. Legal aid helps those individuals who are otherwise unable to afford legal representation and access to the court system. No matter the legal issue – be it a landlord/tenant dispute, or a child custody dispute – legal aid is available to low-income Canadians in order to promote access to justice. In 1998, the Ontario government enacted the Legal Aid Services Act. This Act speaks to the Province’s commitment to legal aid and access-to-justice. However, recent statistics have revealed that our Province’s commitment may have extended a bit too far, financially speaking. As reported by Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) this past January, the agency has a deficit of approximately $26-million. Not surprisingly, the agency will require “significant support to enable it to meet its targets,” one of which includes assisting more than 1 million Ontarians annually. LAO has had to make some difficult decisions regarding cutbacks in order to remain afloat. One of the most notable decisions made by LAO is that the agency will no longer cover costs for a criminal dispute unless there is a “substantial likelihood of incarceration.” What this means is that many low-income Ontarians are now left with no choice but to represent themselves. Not only is this stressful for the self-represented litigant – who if convicted, may lose their job or be faced with a fine they’re physically unable to pay – but it also eats up more oh-so-valuable court time, as the Judge has a duty to ensure the self-rep is given a fair trial. In order to appropriately exercise this duty, the Judge is required to aid the accused in the proper conduct of his/her defence, and guide him/her throughout the trial in order to ensure the defence is brought out suitably. In January, Attorney General Yasir Naqvi ordered a third-party review of LAO’s finances. The review was conducted by Deloitte, who found that the changes implemented by LAO thus far are insufficient, and more must be done in order for the society to realize significant savings. LAO’s president and CEO, David Field, disagrees with Deloitte’s findings and states that LAO is “happy with the progress we’re making [since December].” However, when one considers the recent influx of refugees to Canada, the picture is again worrisome. Many refugees are low-income, which means that the LAO is likely to face increasing demands for services in the near future, and this is a demand they’ll be unable to meet. Cooperation from the Federal government is essential to resolving the problems faced by LAO, and by legal aid agencies across Canada. Ultimately, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance must take action to initiate federal funding for legal aid, not only for Ontario but for Canada as a whole. And with regards to Canadian taxpayers, though we all have a lot to say about the uses to which our money is being put, it’s hard to argue against improvements to the justice system, especially when such improvements are so vital for so many Canadians. If you are in need of representation, please contact the full-service law firm of Devry Smith Frank LLP at 416-449-1400 for more information, or visit our website today. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawMay 14, 2017June 23, 2020