|
Human Rights (Ont) - Bhadauria - Labour Relations Act. City of Toronto v. Canadian Union of Public Employees
In City of Toronto v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered the initial onus for a finding of discrimination, here in a JR of a labour arbitrator's decision:[19] In order to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination under the Code, a complainant need only establish the following: (1) that they are a member of a group protected by the Code; (2) that they were subjected to adverse treatment; and (3) that the protected ground was a factor in the alleged adverse treatment: Shaw v. Phipps, 2010 ONSC 3884, 325 D.L.R. (4th) 701, at para 47.
[20] It has long been held that intention is not a required element of discrimination under the Code: Ont. Human Rights Comm. v. Simpsons-Sears, 1985 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536, at p. 549; Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, at paras. 111-12; Phipps, at para. 76. The focus is instead on the impact on the individual, regardless of any discriminatory intent or motive. It is also unnecessary to show direct evidence of discrimination; discrimination may be proved by circumstantial evidence and inference: Pieters, at paras. 111-12. . CTS (ASDE) Inc. v. Labourers’ International Union of North America et al
In CTS (ASDE) Inc. v. Labourers’ International Union of North America et al (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court cites statutory authority from the Labour Relations Act (OLRB) that the Board may apply human rights law:[33] The Board is specifically authorized under s. 133 of the Act (which incorporates s. 48(12))(j)) to apply human rights statutes. It has considerable experience in doing so in the context of allegations of unjust dismissal. ASDE has not demonstrated that the Board’s factual findings or conclusion of discrimination warrant interference by this Court
|
