SOMA
RAY-ELLIS
While the Ontario Human
Rights Code has been amended
and the rules of practice have
recently changed, the fundamentals of successfully representing
an employer remain the same. In
a recent decision, Vice-Chair
Mark Hart of the Human Rights
Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO)
reiterated that the holy grail of
employer success is rooted in a
company’s ability to respond to
human rights complaints and
follow their own policies.
Employers are required to
actively respond to potential violations of the Code. Employers
will be evaluated on their awareness of discrimination and
harassment issues at the workplace. The trier of fact will look
to see whether an anti-discrimin-ation/harassment policy and
complaint system exists, and
whether employees receive
proper instruction concerning its
provisions.
If a complaint is made, the
employer will be evaluated on
whether it was taken seriously,
investigated, and dealt with
promptly and sensitively. The
employer will also be evaluated
on whether a reasonable resolution was achieved, the findings
were communicated to the
employee, and attempts were
made to provide the complainant
with a health and discrimina-tion-free environment.
In Baisa v. Skills for Change
and Nelson Briceno, [2010]
O.H.R.T.D. No. 1626, the complainant was a single mother of
Ukrainian origin employed as a
resource officer at Skills for
Change. In August of 2006, the
complainant sent an email to the
executive director detailing an
incident where her co-worker hit
her several times with a package
of dough. A month later, a meet-
DREAMSTIME.COM
Companies must respond to possible violations of human rights codes promptly and sensitively to avoid liability.
ing was arranged with the com-
plainant where further allega-
tions were made concerning her
co-worker’s conduct.
These allegations included
comments about female clients’
private parts smelling like fish,
that the complainant, as a single
mother, needed to find a
“motherfucker,” how she wanted
to be artificially inseminated by
the respondent, how the respond-
ent would roll his eyes and shake
his head when she was speaking
with volunteers, that Ukrainian
men were ugly, and that Ukrain-
ians were Nazis.
Ont. CA clarifies test for economic torts
Gus Richardson is pleased to offer his services as an arbitrator and
mediator throughout the Maritimes and Ontario from his Halifax
practice, Ad+Rem ADR Services. + With over 20 years litigation
experience at all levels of courts in Nova Scotia and Ontario, Gus
is also a Nova Scotia Small Claims Court adjudicator. Gus brings
those skills to his practice as an arbitrator and mediator in labour,
insurance, personal injury, commercial and condominium disputes.
www.gusrichardson.com
phone 902.422.6729
email gus@gusrichardson.com
A number of decisions have
recently awarded employees and
other individuals in non-standard
work relationships “economic tort
damages” in excess of the traditional notice period losses. However, some uncertainty has crept
into the case law on the scope of
torts of intentional interference
with economic relations and inducing breach of contract—making
it difficult to advise clients.
In Alleslev-Krofchak v. Valcom
Ltd., [2010] O.J. No. 3548, the
Ontario Court of Appeal provides
STEVE
LEVITT
much-needed clarity on the economic torts. Valcom, a consulting
company which contracts with
government, wanted to obtain an
aerospace contract that required
experience in performance-based
contracting. Valcom had no such
experience. Enter, Alleslev-Krof-
chak (AK), a former member of
the military, who had both the
relevant experience and contacts
in the industry.
Valcom was able to secure the
contract, thanks to AK’s ability to
attract a U.S. company to act as
subcontractor to Valcom. AK
then incorporated a company to
provide services to the U.S. subcontractor and was personally
designated as the project manager. Valcom was not happy with
this arrangement, but as they
