Jurisdiction

Responsibility and Liability

Responsibility

Everyone is responsible for ensuring a harassment and discrimination-free workplace

Liability

People can be held liable for their own actions or even the actions of other.

An employer may be liable for harassment committed by employees outside of the normal parameters of the workplace or working hours if it has implications or repercussions in the workplace.

Examples may include incidents that occur during company-initiated social events such as holiday parties, baseball tournaments, business trips, conferences and workshops, or other company-related events and functions, whether they take place on or off company premises.

Roles regarding responsibility and liability:

Scope of Protection

Who is protected under the Human Rights Code and Company Policies?

When it comes to employment, full-time, part-time, temporary, casual, probationary and contract employees, as well as volunteers, summer and co-op students, outside agency employees performing work for the company are covered by the Code and company policies. While the Code does not specifically define “employee”, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the courts have generally applied a very liberal interpretation in extending the protection of the Code.

Human Rights Reference Tool Overview

Discuss the responsibility and liability of all parties, the scope of protection, prohibited and non-prohibited grounds, and the social areas covered within the grounds.

Provide definitions and examples of all forms of harassment and discrimination.

Provide a downloadable version of the company’s Human Rights and Anti-Harassment Policy. 

Provide a number of quick links on the key themes of this Human Rights Reference Tool.

Provide commonly asked questions and answers as it applies to your company’s policy.

This Human Rights Reference Tool can be further customized and enhanced by including your company’s brand/logo, and policy.

Contact HR Proactive Inc. to discuss customization options and pricing.

Prohibited and Non-prohibited Grounds

Grounds Prohibited by the Ontario Human Rights Code
To combat workplace harassment, the provincial government has put in place laws to promote equality of treatment and prevent harassment in the workplace. As an employee, you are covered by provincial human rights legislation.

Grounds Not Prohibited by the Ontario Human Rights Code
When complaints cannot be related to the grounds prohibited by the Code, these may still present workplace issues that need to be addressed by management and resolved before they escalate, and may fall within a form of harassment most commonly referred to as personal or psychological harassment.

Prohibited Grounds Definitions
The Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination and harassment on the grounds listed below. Click on the buttons to learn the definitions of the grounds, review examples, and access case law.

Social Areas

Examples include restaurants, stores, public pools, arenas, libraries.

  • Angeconeb vs. 517152 Ontario Ltd., supra. A practice of accommodating native clients in inferior rooms in hotel amounts to discrimination, whether intentional or not, and whether or not the practice was adopted in all cases.
  • Rosetti vs. Montgomery (1988), 9 C.H.R.R. D/4498 (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry). The fact that the owner of a bar has had past problems with members of a particular ethnic minority does not justify the refusal to provide service to members of that ethnic group.

Everyone has a right to rent or buy a house or apartment on equal terms without discrimination.

  • Niagara North Condominium Corp. No. 46 v. Chassie (1999), 173 D.L.R. (4th) 524 (Ont. Gen. Div.). A condominium corporation which prohibits pet ownership discriminates against disabled person who require a pet to function independently.

Every person having legal capacity has a right to contract on equal terms without discrimination.

  • Janssen v. Ontario (Milk Marketing Board) (1990). 13 CHRR D/397 (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry). A policy which permitted dairy farmers who chose not to ship milk on Sundays to make other arrangements at an additional cost had a differential impact on farmers who observed Sundays as a Sabbath. A reasonable accommodation of these farmers would spread the additional costs across the entire community of dairy farmers.

Includes all aspects of employment including: hiring, dismissal, promotion or training.

  • Clarendon Foundation v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 593, [2000] L.V.I. 3104-6 (Ont. Arb. Bd.). An employer may be liable for the acts of third parties, such as consumers and customers. It has a duty to intervene to stop harassment of its employees by third parties.
  • Gosselin v. Kenora Ballet School (February 28, 1994), No. 592 (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry). The employer asked the complainant to sign a legal waiver regarding the aerobics classes she taught and their effect on the fetus. The complainant refused and was fired. Both the request and firing were discriminatory.

Distinguishing between essential and non-essential work duties is an important element of the accommodation process. We all understand that every job comes with a variety of tasks that need to be done. However, we also understand that some tasks are less crucial than others.

In seeking to accommodate the needs of a person with disabilities in the workplace, insisting that the person be able to perform every last duty regardless of its importance to the essential nature of the job can result in the person being excluded.

For example, if a person who uses a wheelchair is otherwise able to perform the essential duties of receptionist, but is told they must also deliver incoming mail to the desks of the workers on several floors of the workplace, not all of them easily accessible to a person in a wheelchair, this person may be unfairly excluded from a job they can otherwise perform. An effective accommodation process will recognize that this is a duty that can easily be swapped to another worker, thus allowing the person to perform the essential duties of receptionist.

This social area deals with your right to join and be treated equally in a union, professional association or other vocational association including the terms and conditions of memberships, rates of pay and work assignments.

  • Gohm v. Domtar Inc (No. 4) (1990), 12 C.H. R.R. D/161 (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry). Where a union refused to allow a collective agreement to be altered to accommodate the religious beliefs of an employee, its action (along with those of the employer) contributed to the discrimination suffered by the complainant who was dismissed for failure to work on religious holidays. The union failed to attempt to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of the complainant.

Relationship between Grounds & Social Areas

In order for a human rights-based complaint to go forward, an individual must show harassment or discrimination based on one or more of the prohibited grounds in one of the social areas. That is, there are two qualifying factors that must be met in order for a complaint to move forward: the complaint must be one that cites a prohibited ground AND falls within one of the social areas. Simply put:
Prohibited Ground + Social Area Complaint
Click on the examples below to learn more
Call us today for your
workplace training needs

Please complete the form below and
we will get back to you shortly.