Looking to hire in the GTA?
We offer win-win strategies for employers!
FREE services + qualified candidates
+ incentives/supports
Next-Steps Employment Centres
Don Mills
416-395-5101
Riverdale
416-396-2313
Dundas-Dixie
905-896-2233
Vaughan
905-851-6551
Ask us about the Canada-Ontario Job Grant for employers
Operated by
Downsview
416-395-9559
Scarborough
416-396-8110
Mississauga
Meadowvale
905-814-8406
Monday to Friday
9 am - 5 pm
This Employment Ontario service is funded
www.next-steps.ca
NextStepsEmploymentCentres
@NextStepsEC in part by the Government of Canada
to include acts of sexual harassment. However, some Canadian
courts continued to question the nexus between sexual harassment
and sex discrimination in employment until the Supreme
Court’s decision in Janzen.
In that case, two waitresses were sexually harassed by a cook,
and brought complaints that the conduct constituted discrimination
on the basis of sex. In overturning the decision of the
Manitoba Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously
ruled that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. In
recognition of its impact as both an abuse of economic and sexual
power in the workplace, the Supreme Court broadly defined
sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that
detrimentally affects the work environment or leads to adverse
job-related consequences.”
Think of everything that has come from this case – from increased
vigilance on the part of employers to prevent sexual
harassment and to respond to it appropriately, to the growth of
workplace investigations and Bill 132 in Ontario and Bill 23 in
B.C. Justice Deschamps’ report on sexual harassment in the military
and Sheila Fraser’s current inquiry into the handling of sexual
harassment complaints and investigations at the RCMP are all
part of the legacy of this case. The list could go on and on.
5. Recognizing LGBT Rights
Vriend v. Alberta, 1998 1 SCR 493 (“Vriend”)
The LGBT community has historically been excluded from
rights-conferring legislation. It was not until the 1970s and ’80s
that provincial human rights statutes began to recognize sexual
orientation as a protected ground. The province of Alberta was
one jurisdiction that lagged behind that development, until the
Supreme Court’s decision in Vriend.
In that case, an employee was fired as a result of his admitted
homosexuality, but was unable to file a discrimination complaint
because “sexual orientation” was not a protected ground under the
provincial legislation. The employee commenced a lawsuit, alleging
that the omission was inconsistent with the equality guarantees
of the Charter. In agreeing with the employee, the court effectively
ruled that discriminating against or excluding individuals on the
basis of sexual orientation is inconsistent with the Charter. The decision
is viewed as one of the fundamental triggers for the increased
recognition of LGBT rights in the 21st century.
6. Accommodating Religious Freedom
Grant v. Canada (Attorney General), 125 DLR (4th) 556
(Fed. C. A.) (“Grant”)
In a complex and diverse society, accommodating religious freedoms
is no easy task. In fact, attempts to challenge multicultural
policies under the guise of “reverse discrimination” have made their
way through the Canadian legal system. Grant was one such prominent
case in which a uniform policy of the RCMP, which allowed
Sikhs to wear turbans, was challenged as unconstitutional on the
grounds that:
■■ It compelled individuals to acknowledge the religious
traditions of Sikh officers; and
■■ It favoured the religious preferences of Sikhs over those of
other groups.
HRPATODAY.CA ❚ OCTOBER 2016 ❚ 25