On October 14, 2015, Dayna Steinfeld was a guest lecturer in the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law Civil Law Section’s “Introduction to the Study of Law” class. This undergraduate class provides an introduction to the Canadian legal system, beginning with the fundamentals of Canada’s legal framework and the common and civil law traditions, and then surveying the basics of different areas of law. Dayna’s guest lecture focused on contracts in the labour and employment context and how legislation provides a minimum floor of protection for workers.

On May 12, 2015, Wassim Garzouzi presented on Human Rights at the Workplace. The panel presentation was hosted by the North Bay Chapter of the Human Resources Professional Association and included counsel from both labour and management side firms.

In Ottawa, many workers believe themselves to be “independent contractors” either because they prefer this characterization or because their employers have described them in those terms. Unfortunately, both might be incorrect and being improperly considered an independent contractor when you are actually an employee can have weighty implications for your annual tax payments and also your legal entitlements if and when the employment relationship ends.

What’s in a name?

Like our dear (albeit impulsive) Juliet, who recognized early on “that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, the Ontario courts have long recognized that, when it comes to a potential employer-employee relationship, it is not the title one is assigned, but rather the nature of the relationship that is determinative.

To complicate matters further, the courts have created a third category between employees and independent contractors: these individuals are named “dependent contractors”. Once again, the crucial question is the nature of relationship.

Factors for determining if you are an employee or a contractor

To determine the relationship between the parties, one must first determine whether an employment relationship exists. The leading case on the first step is 671122 Ontario Ltd. V. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., [2001] 2 SCR 983. According to that case,  the central question is whether the person who has been engaged to perform the services is performing them as a person in business on his own account. In making this determination, the level of control the employer has over the worker’s activities will always be a factor. The Court also identified the following (non-exhaustive) factors to consider:

[i] whether the worker provides his or her own equipment,

[ii]whether the worker hires his or her own helpers,

[iii] the degree of financial risk taken by the worker,

[iv] the degree of responsibility for investment and management held by the worker, and

[v] the worker’s opportunity for profit in the performance of his or her tasks.

If those factors signal that the worker is a contractor rather than an employee, the second step in the inquiry is to determine whether the engaged party is an Independent or a Dependent contractor: McKee v. Reid’s Heritage Homes Ltd. 2009 ONCA 916 (CanLII).

In McKee, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted, “the dependent contractor category arises as a ‘carve-out’ from the non-employment category and does not affect the range of the employment category.” The Court held that the most significant factor for identifying a dependent contractor is an exclusive relationship (i.e. the contractor provides his or her services only to one business or enterprise). The Court noted that this factor is also relevant at the first stage of the test:

[T]he proper initial step is to determine whether a worker is a contractor or an employee… Under that analysis, the exclusivity of the worker is listed as a factor weighing in favour of the employee category (Belton’s first principle). The next step, required only if the first step results in a contractor conclusion, determines whether the contractor is independent or dependent, for which a worker’s exclusivity is determinative, as it demonstrates economic dependence. Therefore, exclusivity might be a “hallmark” of the dependent contractor category vis-à-vis the broader category of contractors. However, it continues also as a factor in determining whether the worker is not a contractor at all, but rather an employee, in the first-step analysis.

Implications of being an employee vs contractor

The taxation implications if CRA deems you to be an employee are significant, as are the implications to the employer, who will be then obligated to provide you with employment benefits as per the Employment Standards Act, 2000, as well as make the necessary EI and CPP contributions. If you are not an employee under the law, there may still be important consequences, depending on whether you are characterized as independent vs dependent. The most important consequence is that a “dependent contractor” is owed some form of reasonable notice of termination of employment. Click here  to read more about reasonable notice.

When entering into any employment or contractual agreement, individuals are well advised to obtain independent legal advice in order to fully understand the implications of the agreement they are entering into.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

Andrew Astritis will be speaking at the Ontario Bar Association’s Annual Update on Human Rights, which will take place on Friday, May 29, 2015. Andrew’s presentation will address the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s screening process under the Canadian Human Rights Act, including recent decisions setting out the procedural protections for complainants in this process. For more information on the conference please visit the OBA’s website.

Canadian law protects workers from being treated differently based on certain prohibited grounds of discrimination. The prohibited grounds are set out in human rights legislation, such as the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code. They include race, ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, and family status, among others. The Ontario Code also provides explicit protection on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

The following provides answers to some common questions about discrimination in the workplace. Questions about your particular circumstances should be reviewed with a lawyer experienced in employment and human rights matters.

How do I know if my employer is discriminating against me based on a prohibited ground?

It is sometimes easy to draw a link between an employer’s actions and a prohibited ground of discrimination. A policy refusing to hire workers of a particular nationality, for instance, is plainly discriminatory. But discrimination is rarely this blatant or obvious. More often we have to look at other evidence to determine whether discrimination is taking place, such as whether an employer applies its rules differently to individuals based on prohibited ground.

Differential treatment based on other factors can also be discriminatory if it has a disproportionate impact on individuals who share a characteristic protected by a prohibited ground. As noted below, workplace rules that appear to be neutral on their face can, nonetheless, be discriminatory. Drawing this link would require evidence that the employer’s conduct would have a disproportionate impact on an individual or group of individuals based on prohibited ground.

What if my employer claims its actions were based on something other than a prohibited ground?

Employers often claim that there were other, non-discriminatory reasons that justify their actions, such as a decision to terminate an employee. The law in Canada, however, is clear: discrimination has taken place so long as a prohibited ground is one of the factors behind the employer’s decision. For example, if there is evidence that an employer fired an employee in part because they were uncomfortable with her same-sex relationship, it is no defence to say that the employee also had performance issues.

Does it matter if my employer did not intend to discriminate against me?

It is not necessary that an employer intend to discriminate against an individual or group for the behaviour to be discriminatory. Workplace rules and policies that appear to be neutral can have unintended or disproportionate impact on particular groups. Some examples based on previous decisions include:

• A workplace rule that requires all employees to rotate through Saturday shifts may discriminate against certain religious groups.
• A seemingly objective fitness standard may discriminate if it disproportionately excludes women.
• A requirement that all employees perform a particular task may discriminate against an individual whose disability prevents them from doing so.

This is because the purpose of human rights legislation is not to lay blame but to eradicate discrimination.

My manager and co-workers are making offensive comments. Does it matter if they say they are joking?

Human rights legislation protects against harassment based on a prohibited ground. This includes a course of conduct or comments that someone knows are unwelcome, or ought reasonably to know are unwelcome. Whether jokes constitute harassment will depend on the circumstances, but the fact that someone says they were just joking is not an excuse.

Does my employer have to make changes in the workplace to accommodate my needs?

Human rights law also requires employers to take steps to ensure that all employees can participate fully in the workplace despite any limitations they may have that are linked to a prohibited ground. Human rights tribunals and courts have required employers to make physical changes to workplaces to accommodate an employee’s mobility issues. They have also required employers to provide employees with a shift schedule that accommodates their family obligations. Whether or not your employer must accommodate you in such a manner will depend on your particular situation. (Click here to read more about the employer’s duty to accommodate.)

Can an employer ever justify discriminatory conduct?

In certain circumstances an employer can justify a rule or policy that has a discriminatory impact on employees. For instance, an employer can try to prove that it requires a particular rule that has a discriminatory impact, or that it has done as much as it can to accommodate an employee. The test, however, is high, and requires an employer to demonstrate that it cannot accommodate further without suffering “undue hardship”.

We are here to help: Consult one of our experienced human rights lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are considering making a complaint of discrimination against your employer.

Live-in caregivers sadly face the risk of abuse and exploitation due to their vulnerable position, an issue most commonly arising in the criminal or immigration context. A recent decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, PN v FR and another, 2015 BCHRT 60 , addressed this issue through a human rights lens. The Tribunal allowed a complaint of discrimination and harassment from a live-in nanny who was subjected to horrific treatment by the family employing her. The decision highlights both the benefits and the limitations of using human rights law to redress exploitation of vulnerable workers.

Background

The Complainant, PN, was a live-in caregiver from the Philippines who worked for the Respondents in Hong Kong for a year before moving with them to Canada. The Tribunal’s account of PN’s treatment during her employment with the Respondents is harrowing: she borrowed money to pay for the training and travel necessary to obtain the job with the Respondents, and she was paid roughly $600 per week while working more than 17 hours per day. She was demeaned and berated by the wife and sexually exploited by the husband. After a year working for the family in Hong Kong, she was pressured to accompany the family to Canada, and signed a contract agreeing to repay visa and travel costs in excess of $13,000 if she changed her mind about moving with them.

In Canada, she lived with the family in a hotel suite, sleeping on a couch with no privacy. After six weeks in which the abuse and exploitation continued, she fled, moving into a women’s shelter. At the shelter, she was able to access counselling and legal representation, and brought a complaint of discrimination under the B.C. Human Rights Code.

Decision of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal

The Tribunal found that the Complainant had been sexually harassed and exploited by the Respondents as her employer. The Tribunal held that PN’s protected characteristics were factors in this treatment:

PN is a young mother from the Philippines without supports in Canada. This gave rise to a situation where it was possible to take unfair advantage of her. The way that MR treated her and the expectations of PN working all the time at the beck and call of the respondents have their roots in her hiring from the Philippines and the factors emphasized of youth, hard work and unlikeliness to complain, which are characteristics attributed to Filipino workers by stereotype and prejudice.

The Tribunal further found that the Respondents retaliated against PN by demanding repayment of the costs of her travel to Canada, in response to the filing of the human rights complaint.

In light of the egregious nature of the discriminatory conduct, the significant impact that it had on PN, and her vulnerable position, the Tribunal awarded $50,000 in damages.

A new avenue of redress for exploited, vulnerable workers?

In addition to the exceptionally high damages award, the Tribunal’s decision is significant for its analysis of the nexus between PN’s mistreatment by her employer and her protected characteristics. The Tribunal found that PN’s status (a young, Filipino mother) created an opportunity for the Respondents to take unfair advantage of her. A similar line of analysis could potentially be applied to other categories of vulnerable workers in Canada: for example, migrant agricultural workers are often foreign nationals with precarious immigration status and limited resources. Thus, this decision could point towards opportunities for other workers to seek redress under human rights legislation when they are mistreated or exploited by their employers due to their vulnerable position.

However, the case also highlights the limitations of the human rights regime as an avenue to fight against exploitation of workers. For example, the Tribunal had no authority to grant PN immigration or employment status in Canada. Moreover, a significant portion of the mistreatment suffered by PN predated her arrival in Canada, leaving the Tribunal with no jurisdiction to award a remedy regarding those events. Thus, a human rights complaint presents a promising, but imperfect, avenue to potentially seek damages against employers who have taken advantage of vulnerable workers in Canada.

UPDATE: OPT v Presteve Foods Ltd­—another victory for exploited foreign workers

Subsequent to the decision in PN, above,  a similar case was decided by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in OPT v Presteve Foods Ltd, 2015 HRTO 675 . In that case, two temporary foreign workers complained that they were subject to repeated, unwanted sexual advances and sexual assaults by their employer. They felt unable to refuse his sexual solicitations and advances because of threats that they would be returned to their home country. The employer was criminally charged in connection with these incidents and similar assaults on other workers, and pled guilty to some charges.

Like the PN case, this decision is remarkable for the exceptionally high damages award: the Tribunal found that the seriousness of the conduct was “unprecedented”, and that the complainants were particularly vulnerable due to their status as migrant workers. On the basis of these considerations, the Tribunal awarded compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect in the amount of $150,000 to one of the workers, and $50,000 to the second.

Despite this significant damages award, this case further illustrates the inherent limitations of the human rights forum to address the broader issues facing foreign workers. Justicia for Migrant Workers intervened in OPT and asked the Tribunal to grant public interest remedies related to the temporary foreign worker program. The Tribunal’s response to this intervention demonstrates that many systemic remedies to the exploitation of foreign workers are beyond the scope of the human rights regime:

Finally, I was invited by the intervenor to make comment upon certain aspects of temporary foreign worker programs in Canada. As these programs fall within federal jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate for me to do so… I have commented in this Decision and in my decision in Peart v. Ontario (Attorney General), above, regarding the particular and special vulnerabilities of migrant workers in Ontario, especially in light of the closed work permit that requires them to be tied to one employer and so be under the constant threat and fear of losing their employment and being repatriated without reason and without any avenue for appeal or review. Dr. Preibisch testified that, in her opinion, it may be helpful to institute a registry for companies who employ migrant workers, such as the one that exists in Manitoba, and to take other steps identified by her to address the vulnerabilities of migrant workers. However, I do not have jurisdiction in this proceeding to make any such order. As a result, the intervenor’s request is denied.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

Human rights laws in Canada do not simply prohibit employers and other organizations from taking overtly discriminatory actions against individuals. These laws, such as the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Canadian Human Rights Act, also require an employer to take positive steps to eliminate or reduce barriers in the workplace. This is known as the duty to accommodate.

The duty to accommodate recognizes that it is sometimes necessary to treat a person differently from others in order to ensure they are treated fairly in light of their individual characteristics, needs, or circumstances. The duty is aimed at removing barriers and ensuring individuals’ the ability to fully participate in the workplace and society at large.

In the employment context, the duty to accommodate often arises when an employer seeks to apply a rule or standard to all employees in a way that has negative consequences for some employees due to a prohibited ground of discrimination. (See “Am I being discriminated against at work?”  for more information on the prohibited grounds of discrimination.)

In these circumstances, the employer may be required to accommodate the employee by modifying the rule as it applies to the employee, by providing additional assistance or making changes to the physical environment or workplace culture, or even by providing an exemption for the employee.

For example:

• An employer could be required to modify dress code requirements for some employees if the dress code conflicts with an employee’s religious dress requirements.
• An employer may be required to provide employees with modified duties, specialized work equipment, or changes to their physical workspace if they cannot perform their duties for reasons such as pregnancy or disability.
• An employer could be required to allow for alternative work arrangements, such as compressed hours, flexible hours or a flexible place of work to accommodate childcare or other family obligations.

Employee Responsibilities

The nature of the accommodation required will vary according to each individual’s unique needs, which must be assessed and accommodated on an individualized basis.

While employers will sometimes be under an obligation to inquire into whether an employee needs accommodation, it is generally the responsibility of the employee to communicate his or her need for accommodation to the employer.

Employees are also required to cooperate and be reasonable during the accommodation process. This may involve providing information to help the employer understand what it needs to do to provide accommodation. But employers are entitled to only the information necessary to determine what accommodation is required.

Finally, employees may be required to accept accommodations that appropriately address their needs, even if the accommodations are not ideal or exactly what the employees had asked for.

Accommodating to the Point of Undue Hardship

The duty to accommodate is not limitless. Even where it seems like the employer may have failed to provide necessary accommodation, the employer may nonetheless justify its policy, practice or expectation.

For instance, an employer may be able to establish that accommodating an employee would cause the employer such significant hardship that it should not be required to provide accommodation. Examples of undue hardship can include changes that endanger an employee’s health and safety or the health and safety of others, or changes that impose a financial cost that is so significant that it threatens the viability of the employer’s business. That being said, the standard on the employer is high and recognizes that employer may be required to suffer some hardship in order to provide accommodation.

Conclusion

Whether an employer or other organization has fulfilled its duty to accommodate an individual – and whether it will be able to establish a defence if it has not – is a very individualized and fact-based inquiry. If you believe that an employer or service-provider has failed to accommodate you on the basis of a prohibited ground, you may have been subject to discrimination, and you should seek advice from a human rights lawyer.

We are here to help: Consult one of our experienced human rights lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are considering making a complaint of discrimination against your employer.

Andrew Astritis participated as a panelist in a recent webinar by the Canadian Bar Association on family status accommodation. The webinar provided an update on cases on this issue from across Canada, including a discussion of recent cases that have been decided since the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Canada (Attorney General) v Johnstone. For information or to purchase a copy of the recording, please visit the CBA website.

A scientist in the federal public service made national headlines last week when he was suspended with pay pending an investigation into a protest song he wrote about the Harper government. Tony Turner and a chorus of others appeared in a video performance of the song, “Harperman“, which was posted on YouTube last June and had garnered approximately 50,000 views. The video prompted an investigation, according to news reports, into whether Mr. Turner has violated the Values and Ethics Code that applies to employees in the federal government. Mr. Turner is being represented by his union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, in the investigation.

This case has brought widespread attention to the interesting issue of the political and free speech rights of public servants. Public service employees enjoy the right to free expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including political expression, but courts have held that these rights are not absolute: they are limited based on the duty of loyalty to the employer, as well as the need for a politically neutral public service.

How these competing interests are balanced in any one case is difficult to predict: the central question is whether the political activity or criticism impacts the employee’s ability to perform his or her duties as a public servant effectively, or whether it impacts the public perception of that ability. The following factors have been considered in past cases:

• The nature and scope of the political activity in question;
• The position and responsibilities of the employee engaging in that activity;
• Whether the individual identified himself or herself as a public servant in the course of the political activity; and,
• Whether the criticism was particularly sustained or vitriolic in nature.

The question remains how these considerations will be applied in Mr. Turner’s case, as the investigation has not yet concluded. One thing that appears certain is that the results of the investigation will be closely watched by the Canadian public—ironically, the suspension and investigation have brought far more public attention to the song than it would ever have otherwise received (in the few days since this story broke, “Harperman” has vaulted from 50,000 to over 400,000 views on YouTube).

Another question that remains: can someone really be disciplined for writing something this catchy?

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

On May 11, in its decision in Kirby v Correctional Services Canada, 2015 PSLREB 41, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board ordered Correctional Services Canada (CSC) to pay $12,500 in back-wages and damages for pain and suffering for having discriminated against an employee on the basis of disability.

The employee, Larry Kirby, had been working as an institutional driver for the CSC when he injured his back in 2005 and became unable to perform some of the duties of his position. Initially, the CSC accommodated Mr. Kirby by reorganizing his position so that he could focus solely on duties he was medically able to perform.

In 2009, after three years of accommodating Mr. Kirby, CSC received a Health Canada assessment indicating that Mr. Kirby’s disability was permanent and that he should be accommodated in his current position on a permanent basis. Despite the CSC’s admission that there was sufficient work for Mr. Kirby, and that allowing him to perform it permanently wouldn’t cause undue hardship, CSC sent Mr. Kirby home on sick leave. The CSC alleged that it simply wasn’t its practice to create a position in which to accommodate a disabled employee.

The PSLREB Adjudicator found that that CSC could have continued to accommodate Mr. Kirby on a permanent basis in his former position with modified duties, and that the failure to do so was in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the collective agreement. CSC was ordered to pay $12,500 damages for pain and suffering and wilful and reckless disregard of its obligations under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Mr. Kirby was represented by David Yazbeck of RavenLaw.