3 total
Family-status discrimination includes adverse treatment based on relatives' identities.
The appeal concerned whether dismissal from employment after the employee's spouse and child accused the employer of past sexual abuse constituted discrimination based on marital status and family status.
The court held that under the Human Rights Code, marital and family status include not only the fact of being married or in a parent-child relationship, but also the identity of the spouse and family members.
The court rejected the view that discrimination analysis turns on whether the complainant belongs to a historically disadvantaged group, emphasizing that the Code protects individuals arbitrarily disadvantaged on enumerated grounds.
Because the employee was dismissed based on assumptions arising from his relationship to his spouse and child rather than his own conduct or merit, the dismissal was discriminatory.
The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board of Inquiry on remedy.
Board lacks jurisdiction under section 69 over sale of business from federal to provincial undertaking.
The applicant unions brought applications under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the sale of an answering service business from Rogers Cantel Paging Inc. to AAS Telecommunications Services Limited.
Rogers raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the sale was from a federal undertaking.
The Board found that Rogers operated the answering and paging services as a fully integrated business, which constituted a federally regulated undertaking.
The Board concluded it has no jurisdiction under section 69 to consider a sale of part of a federally regulated operation to a provincially regulated company, and dismissed the applications.
Tribunal assumes jurisdiction over pay equity complaint after review officer had reasonable opportunity to effect settlement.
The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the respondent municipality contravened the Pay Equity Act.
The respondent and the Board of Commissioners of Police challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the complaint, arguing the review officer had not declared an inability to effect a settlement.
The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under both s. 25(1)(a) and s. 25(1)(b) of the Act, finding that a reasonable opportunity for settlement had occurred and that an order had been issued entitling the applicant to request a hearing.
The Tribunal also granted the Board of Commissioners party status for the limited purpose of determining what constitutes the establishment.
