|
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
negotiated terms for termination
The recent Supreme Court of Canada judgment in McGill University Health Centre v. Syndicat des employés de l’Hôpital general de Montréal is the most recent addition by the Court to the jurisprudence on reasonable accommodation. The question before the Court concerned negotiated terms for termination based on innocent absenteeism and the degree to which such provisions, largely for disabled employees, weighed in the determination of whether the termination at the end of the period is discriminatory. Donald Jordan examines the two sets of reasons in the case and compares their likely impact on disabled employees and collective agreement negotiation and employment policy.
AGE DISCRIMINATION
recent age discrimination cases
Age discrimination cases often concern the issue of whether particular employer or government action is based on the stereotype that a person cannot do a job or task as they age. James Hendry looks at a number of recent cases dealing with age discrimination under human rights legislation and the Charter. Some concern the question of whether an employer has a tendency to exclude “older employees” from being hired or from certain jobs. Others concern the way the current Charter equality standard from Law v. Canada test for the use of this stereotype in legislation which is specifically aimed at specified older age groups. The former type of case often relies on statistical or numerical evidence to see if the stereotype might be present. The latter type of case tends to ask whether the age limit has been used in this stereotypical way.
REMEDIES FOR INEQUALITY
equality for same-sex survivors
The Supreme Court of Canada recently had to deal with the question of whether the remedy for discrimination in a benefit plan had to be retroactive or whether there were reasons for allowing a prospective remedy only in Hislop v. Canada (Attorney General). This was a case arising out of the federal government’s attempt to eliminate the exclusion of same-sex partners from the Canada Pension Plan, which was part of a statute passed in 2000 dealing with the same issue in some 68 federal statutes. Helen Gray looks at the decision and the way the Court fairly quickly disposed of the issue of sexual orientation discrimination, but provided extensive guidance on remedies for discrimination in legislated benefit plans.
|
|
James Hendry
Editor-in-Chief
Department of Justice
(Canada)
Gerald D. Chipeur
Chipeur Advocates LLP
Pearl Eliadis
Legal Advisor and Senior
Consultant, Human Rights,
National Institutions and
Democratic Development
(Montreal)
Donald J. Jordan, QC
Taylor Jordan Chafetz
Barbara A.
McIsaac, QC
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Paul B. Schabas
Blake, Cassels &
Graydon LLP
Béatrice Vizkelety
Commission des droits de
la personne et des droits
de la jeunesse (Québec) |