Introduction
2024 brought forward several pivotal decisions that shaped the legal landscape for employers and employees. These cases highlight the critical need for employers to meet their obligations under human rights legislation, particularly in areas such as accommodation, workplace investigations, and fostering respectful workplace environments. Below, we explore five notable cases from 2024 and the key lessons they offer for employers navigating these complex issues.
Key Decisions
The Two-Way Street of Family Status Accommodation
1. Aguele v. Family Options Inc., 2024 HRTO 991
The case of Aguele v. Family Options Inc. highlights the shared responsibilities of employers and employees in the accommodation process. The Applicant alleged that the employer discriminated against the Applicant based on family status failed to accommodate the Applicant’s request for a shift change, and engaged in reprisal. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “HRTO”) accepted that the Respondent, a provider of residential housing and support services to adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities, had certain scheduling limitations based on its staffing and funding model.
The Employer told the HRTO that although it did not understand the Applicant to be requesting accommodation within the meaning of the Code, it attempted to work with her around the childcare restriction that she had later identified. When the Applicant refused the proposed solutions offered by the Employer, it nonetheless placed her in another position which also worked with the restriction identified.
The HRTO found that the Respondent did not engage in discrimination on the grounds of family status, did not fail to accommodate the Applicant, and did not engage in reprisal. The HRTO emphasized the importance of cooperation and collaboration in the accommodation process. Employers are obligated to make inquiries and assess and address requests fairly, but employees must actively participate and provide the necessary details to find reasonable solutions. Distinguishing between “needs” and “preferences,” the HRTO underscored that the duty to accommodate requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation of needs, not preferences. An employee is obligated to accept reasonable proposals. The duty to accommodate is discharged when an employee refuses a reasonable proposal. The HRTO emphasized that while employers must make reasonable efforts to accommodate, the duty to accommodate is not unlimited.
Key Takeaways: The accommodation process is collaborative and requires cooperation. Employers must approach requests flexibly, while employees have a duty to engage, provide sufficient information to support their request and accept reasonable accommodation in the circumstances.
Navigating Workplace Investigations with Sensitivity to Disability
2. Buckel v. St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, 2024 HRTO 1324
The recent HRTO decision in Buckel v. St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton is an important reminder for employers to approach workplace investigations involving employees with disabilities with heightened care. In this case, the HRTO found that while the employer terminated the applicant for time theft, roughly 10% of the absences classified as time theft were related to her documented disability. The Tribunal found that the employer’s record-keeping and investigation were flawed, resulting in its failure to realize that some of the absences for which the employee was found guilty of time theft were disability-related absences. This was enough for the Tribunal to conclude that her disability was a factor in – although not determinative of – the termination decision, resulting in a finding of discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”).
The HRTO identified several flaws in the employer’s investigation, including inadequate review of records, misclassification of disability-related absences, and a failure to allow the employee to respond to the findings before termination. These missteps led to an award of $15,000 in damages for injury to the employee’s dignity, feelings, and self-respect. However, because the HRTO concluded that the employee’s employment would have been terminated irrespective of the discrimination, it did not award special damages for the loss of employment.
Key Takeaways: Employers must exercise caution when investigating workplace issues involving employees with disabilities. Proper procedures, including accurate record-keeping, clear communication, and careful consideration of disability-related factors, are essential to avoid human rights violations and ensure fair outcomes. This case also highlights that caution is required when terminating an employee with a disability to ensure that the disability is not a direct or indirect factor in decision-making.
For more information, please see our original reporting on this case in our November 2024 Healthcare Update here.
Large Penalties for Workplace Harassment
3. L.N. v. Ray Daniel Salon & Spa, 2024 HRTO 179
Workplace harassment and discrimination can result in significant financial consequences, as demonstrated by the $180,000 damages award in L.N. v. Ray Daniel Salon & Spa. In this case, which is an egregious example of Code-related breaches, the HRTO found that the applicant endured a toxic workplace environment rife with bullying, sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, sexual assault, and discriminatory conduct. The employer failed to take any meaningful steps to address the situation, which severely impacted the applicant’s mental and emotional health. Furthermore, the HRTO found that the personal respondent took advantage of the applicant’s vulnerability as a refugee claimant.
The HRTO emphasized that egregious breaches of human rights will not be tolerated, and substantial damages may be awarded to deter such behavior.
Key Takeaways: Employers must foster a respectful workplace culture and act promptly to address harassment and discrimination. Failing to do so can result in significant financial and legal consequences.
The Importance of Investigating Workplace Harassment
4. S.E. v. 2474489 Ontario Inc. (o/a Opa! Souvlaki), 2024 HRTO 343
The decision in S.E. v. 2474489 Ontario Inc. underscores the critical responsibility of employers to address workplace harassment promptly and effectively. This application was brought by a former employee of a franchised restaurant who alleged ongoing sexual harassment by her manager over a four-month period, including inappropriate comments, unwelcome touching, and sexual solicitation. Despite her complaints, the franchise owner failed to take meaningful action, only offering to move her to another location where the same manager was also being transferred. The harassment escalated to two instances of sexual assault, which might have been prevented if her initial complaints had been properly addressed.
The HRTO found that the employer violated the applicant’s rights under the Code, including her right to a discrimination-free workplace and freedom from a poisoned work environment. The employer’s failure to conduct a prompt, serious, and thorough investigation played a key role in the adjudicator’s decision. The HRTO awarded the applicant $35,000 in damages and $3,492 for lost wages, emphasizing that employers are responsible for ensuring workplace safety and addressing human rights violations effectively.
Key Takeaways: Employers must take harassment complaints seriously and conduct thorough investigations when warranted. Failing to take reasonable steps to address workplace human rights violations can lead to significant legal and financial consequences.
For more information, please see our original reporting on this case here.
Employer Ordered to Pay $175,000 For Failure to Protect Employee
5. Stride v. Syra Group et al., 2024 ONSC 2169
In Stride v. Syra Group et al., the Ontario Superior Court highlighted the serious consequences of failing to protect employees from workplace harassment and violence. This case involved a female employee who worked as a superintendent for a property management company. The employee experienced threats, sexual harassment, and violence from tenants at a property she managed. She complained about this to her employer several times, but rather than address her concerns, her employer told her to call the police if she felt unsafe. The employer failed to discuss any accommodations she may need with the employee. The employer also failed to provide her with violence or harassment training and did not have a violence or harassment policy for the building. The harassment continued, causing the employee to suffer from severe mental health issues that forced her to take medical leave. While on leave, her employer terminated her employment, citing her inability to work.
The Court found that the employer’s conduct in this case had been unreasonable and reprehensible in light of what the employee had been going through. The Court ultimately held that the employer had breached their obligations under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the common law when they failed to protect the employee or address the issues she had been facing. In this case, the employer was awarded significant compensatory relief, including $125,000 in general damages for the legislative violations, $50,000 in moral damages, and eight months’ notice. Regarding the notice period, the Court found that a longer notice period was required due to the employee’s medical status at the time of her termination.
Key Takeaways: Employers must take proactive steps to ensure a safe, harassment-free workplace and respond to employee complaints effectively.
For more information, please see our original reporting on this case here.
This publication provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hunter Legal LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hunter Legal LLP.