February 2nd, 2017 by Celia Chandler
Our housing provider and employer clients often get asked to accommodate mental and physical disabilities under the Human Rights Code. While we’ve known for a long time that it’s OK to ask for medical documentation to support the requests, it’s been a bit unclear what should be included in doctors’ notes. Sometimes clients got notes that were too skimpy and other times clients got lengthy ones that revealed much more information than was necessary to meet the request.
Yesterday, the Human Rights Commission released some guidance for doctors, for people requesting accommodation, and for housing providers and employers who have been asked for accommodation. The Commission tells us that a doctor’s note should include:
- that the person has a disability
- the limitations or needs associated with the disability
- whether the person can perform the essential duties or requirements of the job, of being a tenant, or of being a service user, with or without accommodation
- the type of accommodation(s) that may be needed to allow the person to fulfill the essential duties or requirements of the job, of being a tenant, or of being a service user,
- in employment, regular updates about when the person expects to come back to work, if they are on leave
To see what the Commission released yesterday, click here.
To see the Commission’s Policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability, click here.
Save the Date: IC Education, our workshop series, will turn its attention to human rights in housing on March 4, 2017, at Otter Creek Co‑operative in Whitby. More details to follow soon!
September 2nd, 2016 by Lauren Blumas
Workplace sexual harassment has been in the news, a lot. The legislature responded to calls for increased protections for workers by proposing amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) which expand the scope of harassment to include workplace sexual harassment and increase employer obligations to employees.
Those amendments come into force on September 8th. Employers and employees need familiarize themselves with those amendments if they have not already. We blogged about the amendments back in April, here.
So what are the essentials for September 8th? Read the rest of this entry
April 7th, 2016 by Shelina Ali
Bill 132, Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act received royal assent on March 8, 2016 and will come into force in September 2016. It makes several important amendments to the provisions dealing with workplace harassment in the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the Act).
Workplace sexual harassment is now explicitly included in the definition of workplace harassment and is a defined term under the Act. The amendments also clarify that a reasonable action taken by an employer or supervisor in managing employees does not constitute harassment. A reasonable action is not defined under the Act, and will need to be determined on a case by case basis. Read the rest of this entry
January 14th, 2015 by Safia Lakhani
The Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act was passed by the Ontario legislature in November 2014. The Act amends five statutes relating to employment and labour relations, and introduces new obligations for employers in 2015.
Below is a brief summary of amendments to existing legislation under the Act. It is important that employers are familiar with their obligations as these changes come into effect.
Read the rest of this entry
April 1st, 2013 by Priya Sarin
Although federal public servants have always had a limited right to freedom of expression (as compared to private sector employees), certain government employees have recently been subjected to increasingly strict policies, or codes of conduct, which govern their behaviour both in and out of the workplace. Two recent policies effectively restrict access to the media and participation in forums for intellectual debate — such as conferences or teaching engagements. Contrary to what you might expect, these policies do not target employees in the justice, immigration or national defence departments, but rather scientists, librarians and archivists associated with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Canadian Heritage. There are two reasons why Canadians should be concerned: 1) this continues a trend of the Harper government to restrict the public’s timely access to valuable information from our experts on issues of national importance (which in turn negatively impacts the quality of our public discourse and ability to make informed decisions); and 2) some of these policies are unnecessarily restrictive and arguably in breach of section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ‑- the right to freedom of expression.
Read more on rabble.ca
November 29th, 2012 by Shelina Ali
Technology has become central to the workplace, with employers regularly providing employees with access to computers and other devices for use in the course of work and employment activities. Personal use of these devices often becomes incidental, especially as the boundaries between the workplace and home blur. As a result, questions arise over who really owns the personal information generated on these workplace devices and the extent of an employee’s privacy rights over any personal information stored on these devices.
The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Cole indicates that an employee’s personal information, even if stored on computers owned by an employer, may attract a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Read more on rabble.ca