where is the accessibility for ontarians with disabilities act, 2005 ...

2012 Conférence sur le 

droit de l’emploi et 

du travail - Montréal 

2012 Employment & Labour 

Law Conference - Montréal 

le 24 mai 2012 / May 24, 2012

ORDRE DU JOUR 

Conférences sur le droit de l’emploi et du travail 2012 – Montréal 

Bienvenue 

8h00 - 9h00 Enregistrement et petit déjeuner 

9h00 - 9h05 Bienvenue/Introduction – Pablo Guzman 

Présentations individuelles – Session I 

9h05 - 10h25 • Il dit… elle dit… et maintenant?!: Comment mener une enquête en milieu de 

travail avec succès – Karen Bock 

Pause-café 

10h25 - 10h40 Pause café 

Présentations individuelles – Session II 

• Notre ami Anton Piller (l’injunction) – Pablo Guzman 

• Une dose de prévention - Bien gérer la relation de travail dès le début 

– Mike Richards 

• Jouez-vous au Solitaire?! La surveillance de vos systèmes informatiques 

- Tania Da Silva 

10h40 – 12h00 • Que se passe-t-il là-bas? La Loi sur l’accessibilité pour les personnes 

handicapées de l’Ontario – Richard Nixon 

Dîner et conférencière invitee 

• Le harcèlement psychologique: Où en sommes-nous aujourd’hui? 

– André Giroux 

• Développements récents concernant l’obligation d’accommodement 

- Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch 

• Observant les nuages de tous les angles – les risques et les avantages de 

l’informatique nuagière – Tamara Hunter 

12h45 - 13h30 • L’équité salariale au Québec - Heidi Lange, Lange Consulting

Welcome 

2012 Employment & Labour Law Conference – Montréal Agenda 

8:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Breakfast/Registration 

9:00 a.m. - 9:05 a.m. Welcoming Remarks – Pablo Guzman 

Individual Presentations – Session I 

9:05 a.m. - 10:25 a.m. • He Said… She Said… Now What?: How to Conduct a Workplace 

Investigation – Karen Bock 

Refreshment Break 

10:25 a.m. - 10:40 a.m. Refreshment Break 

Individual Presentations – Session II 

• Our Friend, Anton Piller (the Injunction) – Pablo Guzman 

• An Ounce of Prevention: Effectively Managing the Employment Relationship 

From The Beginning – Mike Richards 

• Is That Solitaire On Your Screen?! Surveillance of Your Electronic Systems 

– Tania Da Silva 

10:40 a.m. – 12 p.m. • “What’s Happening Out There? The Accessibility for Ontarians with 

Disabilities Act” – Richard Nixon 

Lunch and Key Note Speaker 

• Psychological Harassment: Where are we today? – André Giroux 

• Recent Developments in the Duty to Accommodate – Wendy-Anne 

Berkenbosch 

• Looking at Clouds from both Sides – Risks and Benefits of Cloud Computing 

– Tamara Hunter 

12:45 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. • Quebec Pay Equity Obligations – Heidi Lange, Lange Consulting Group

Table des matières 

©Davis S.E.N.C.R.L., 2012 

Conférences sur le droit de l’emploi et du travail 2012 - Montréal 

À propos de Davis s.e.n.c.r.l . ........................................................................................................... onglet 1 

Profil du cabinet 

Compétences dans le droit de l’emploi et du travail 

Biographies des conférenciers ........................................................................................................ onglet 2 

Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch 

Karen Bock 

Tania Da Silva 

André Giroux 

Pablo Guzman 

Tamara Hunter 

Richard Nixon 

Mike Richards 

Conférencière invitée: Heidi Lange, de Lange Consulting 

�� Il dit… elle dit… et maintenant?!: Comment mener une enquête 

en milieu de travail avec succès ........................................................................................... onglet 3 

�� Notre ami Anton Piller (l’injunction) ........................................................................................... onglet 4 

�� Une dose de prévention - Bien gérer la relation de travail dès le début ................................. onglet 5 

�� Jouez-vous au Solitaire?! La surveillance de vos systèmes informatiques ......................... onglet 6 

�� Que se passe-t-il là-bas? La Loi sur l’accessibilité pour les personnes 

handicapées de l’Ontario ....................................................................................................... onglet 7 

�� Le harcèlement psychologique: Où en sommes-nous aujourd’hui? ..................................... onglet 8 

�� Développements récents concernant l’obligation d’accommodement .................................. onglet 9 

�� Observant les nuages de tous les angles – les risques et les avantages 

de l’informatique nuagière ..................................................................................................... onglet 10

Table of Contents 

© Davis S.E.N.C.R.L., 2012 

2012 Employment & Labour Law Conference - Montréal 

About Davis LLP.......................................................................................................................................Tab 1 

Firm Profile 

Employment & Labour Law Expertise 

Team Biographies ....................................................................................................................................Tab 2 


Karen Bock 

Tania Da Silva 

André Giroux 

Pablo Guzman 

Tamara Hunter 

Richard Nixon 

Mike Richards 

Featured Speaker: Heidi Lange, Lange Consulting Group 

�� He Said… She Said… Now What?: How to Conduct a Workplace Investigation .........................Tab 3 

�� Our Friend, Anton Piller (the Injunction) ...........................................................................................Tab 4 

�� An Ounce of Prevention: Effectively Managing the Employment Relationship 

From The Beginning ................................................................................................................................Tab 5 

�� Is That Solitaire On Your Screen?! Surveillance of Your Electronic Systems .............................Tab 6 

�� “What’s Happening Out There? The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act” .............Tab 7 

�� Psychological Harassment: Where are we today? .........................................................................Tab 8 

�� Recent Developments in the Duty to Accommodate .......................................................................Tab 9 

�� Looking at Clouds from both Sides – Risks and Benefits of Cloud Computing ..........................Tab 10

Firm Information 

©Davis LLP, 2012 

2012 Employment & Labour Law Conference - Montreal 

Chambers Global: Guide to the Worlds' Leading Lawyers describes Davis as a firm that “maintains a profile as 

a lean outfit that punches above its weight. With a strong client base of Canadian and U.S. companies, the 

firm is often involved in complex matters with an international dimension.” 

With more than 250 lawyers in offices across Canada and in Tokyo, Davis LLP has well-known and respected 

capabilities in core legal services such as corporate and commercial law, M&A, litigation and labour and 

employment. The firm is also a leader in a number of niche markets, including infrastructure development 

(particularly PPPs - public/private partnerships), project finance, renewable energy, climate change law, 

natural resources, environmental law, banking and financial institutions (including banks, credit unions and 

other regulated financial institutions), and Japan and Japanese-related investments. 

Davis LLP's reputation for excellence and ethical practice is recognized in Canada and internationally 

including: 

• Chambers Global 2012 ranks 6 of the firm’s lawyers as leaders in their field, including Employment & 

Labour, Corporate/M&A, Banking & Finance, and Projects: PPP & Infrastructure. 

• Best Lawyers in Canada 2012 directory lists 27 of the firm’s partners across 23 practice areas as leaders 

in their field. 

• The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2011 recognizes 25 of our partners and counsels as leading 

counsel in various areas of practice. 

• Martindale Hubbell peer review rankings have 14 of our lawyers rated as AV® Preeminent (highest 

level of professional excellence) and 52 as BV® Distinguished (a widely respected mark of 

achievement). 

• PLC Which Lawyer? 2011 endorsed 6 partners and recognizes the firm in the areas of 

Competition/antitrust, Construction, Corporate M&A, Dispute Resolution, Restructuring & Insolvency, 

Labour & Employment, Tax, and Capital Markets. 

• The International Who’s Who Legal 2011 identified 9 partners as leading legal practitioners in six 

different areas of business law. 

Davis LLP’s leadership position has been acknowledged with numerous awards, including, most recently: 

• Chambers and Partners 2012 recognized the firm as a leader in the areas of Projects: PPP & 

Infrastructure and Banking & Finance. 

• Canadian Dealmakers recognized Davis LLP’s transaction representing Capstone Mining Corp. in its 

$710 million acquisition of Far West Mining Ltd. as the “Mining Deal of the Year” in 2011. 

• Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships (CCPPP) awarded one of Davis LLP’s projects, the 

Surrey Pretrial Services Centre Expansion Project, a gold award for innovation and excellence in the 

Public-Private Partnership Infrastructure Development in Canada category in 2011.

Office Locations 

TORONTO 

1 First Canadian 

Place 

Suite 6000 

PO Box 367 

100 King Street 

West 

Toronto, Ontario 

Canada M5X 1E2 

T: 416.365.3500 

F: 416.365.7886 

MONTRÉAL 

1501 McGill 

College Avenue 

Suite 1400 

Montréal, Québec 

Canada H3A 3M8 

T: 514.392.1991 

F: 514.392.1999 


VANCOUVER 

2800 Park Place 

666 Burrard Street 

Vancouver, British 

Columbia 

Canada V6C 2Z7 

T: 604.687.9444 

F: 604.687.1612 

TOKYO 

ARK Mori Building 

West Wing 13th 

Floor 

1-12-32 Akasaka 

Minato-ku, Tokyo, 

Japan 

107-6013 

T: 81.3.5251.5071 

F: 81.3.5251.5072 


EDMONTON 

1201 Scotia Tower 2 

10060 Jasper Avenue 

Edmonton, Alberta 

Canada T5J 4E5 

T: 780.426.5330 

F: 780.428.1066 

WHITEHORSE 

The Taku Building 

Suite 201-4109 4th 

Avenue 

Whitehorse, Yukon 

Territory 

Canada Y1A 1H6 

T: 867.393.5100 

F: 867.667.2669 

CALGARY 

Livingston Place 

1000-250 2nd Street 

SW 

Calgary, Alberta 

Canada T2P 0C1 

T: 403.296.4470 

F: 403.296.4474 

YELLOWKNIFE 

Suite 802 

Northwest Tower 

5201 - 50th Avenue 

Yellowknife, 

Northwest Territories 

Canada X1A 3S9 

T: 867.669.8400 

F: 867.669.8420

Practice Areas 


• Aboriginal Law & First Nations 

Legal Issues 

• Asia-Pacific 

� Japan 

� China & Southeast Asia 

• Aviation Law 

• Banking & Financial Services 

• Charities & Not-for-Profit 

• Competition & Antitrust 

� Sponsorship, Promotional 

Contest and Gift Card 

Registry 

• Conflict Management & 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

• Corporate/Commercial /Mergers 

& Acquisitions 

� Corporate Services 

• Education Law 

• Employment & Labour Law 

• Energy 

� Occupational Health and 

Safety 

� Electricity Regulation 

� Renewable Energy 

• Environmental Law 

� Climate Change 

• Family Law 

• Forestry Law 

• Franchise & Distribution Law 

• Health Law 

� Life Sciences 

• Human Rights 

• Immigration 

• Insolvency, Bankruptcy & 

Restructuring 


• Insurance Law 

• Intellectual Property 

• International Business 

Transactions 

• Litigation 

� International Law & Trade 

� International Corporate 

Governance 

� Products Liability Law 

� Personal Injury Law 

� Securities Litigation 

� Class Action 

� Commercial Litigation 

� Legal Research 

• Media, Entertainment & 

Communications 

• Mining Law 

• Municipal Law 

• Pensions & Benefits Law 

• Privacy & Access to Information 

• Professional Governance & 

Regulation 

• Project Finance, Infrastructure 

and Public Private Partnerships 

• Proxy Law 

� Construction Law 

• Public Affairs 

• Real Estate Law 

• Regulatory & Administrative Law 

• Securities & Corporate Finance 

• Taxation 

• Technology & Outsourcing 

� Video Games & 

Interactive Entertainment 

• Transportation Law 

• Wills, Estates & Trusts

Areas of Expertise 

Practice Group Integration 



As a full-service, national law firm, Davis maintains a broad-based network of practice groups and integrated 

specialities capable of providing a comprehensive range of legal services at the highest level. The operational 

organization of our firm and the expertise of our lawyers enables us not only to respond quickly and effectively 

to individual requirements in any area, but also to provide our clients with ongoing responsive counsel and 

services across a broad spectrum of activities. 

Our practice groups are coordinated into cross-disciplinary teams of specialists who are capable of directing 

extensive resources to particular areas of law, particular industries, and particular nations or regions as 

required. We organize resources to provide clients with the depth and expertise characteristic of a highly 

specialized “boutique firm,” along with the breadth and capability of a large, full-service national firm. Our goal 

is to provide effective solutions which anticipate future developments and other needs 

Employment & Labour Law 

The Davis LLP Employment & Labour Law Practice Group provides innovative strategic advice, dispute 

resolution and negotiation expertise to management in all aspects of business employment relations. 

Our lawyers who practice in this area have diverse backgrounds in labour and employment and related areas 

such as employee benefits and pensions, executive compensation, governance, human rights and privacy. 

Below are some examples of the services our group provides: 

• We appear as advocates before labour boards and arbitrators, human rights tribunals and other 

statutory tribunals and the courts in both federal and provincial jurisdictions. 

• We advise on: 

• personnel reorganization programs, employment contracts, employment termination; 

procedures and wrongful dismissal litigation; 

• employment and human resources policies; 

• all aspects of human rights; 

• compliance with Employment Standards, Workers' Compensation and other labour 

legislation; 

• the negotiation and administration of collective agreements; 

• the negotiation, conciliation and arbitration of strikes and lockout situations; and 

• privacy laws and confidential information issues relevant to employers. 

• We assist with the negotiation, conciliation and arbitration of strikes and lockout situations. 

• We provide a full range of services in employee benefits including representing pension advisors and 

acting on insurance and disability issues. 

Our clients include employers at all levels of business and industry. We have acted for: 

• A major Ontario retailer in relation to a union certification application. After the union won the 

certification vote, we were successful in obtaining a second certification vote which the employer 

subsequently won.



• A major Canadian telecommunications company in relation to labour grievance arbitrations, wrongful 

dismissal claims, major policy review and disability benefits advice and litigation, and negotiation of 

employment contracts for senior executives. 

• A major international insurance company in relation to the negotiation of the executive compensation. 

• A major Ontario hospital in relation to the contracting out of its retail food cafeteria and other services, 

including advising on all labour and employment issues relating to the contracting-out initiative and 

how the initiative would affect both union and non-union employees. We also provide the hospital 

with advice on the best options and strategies for achieving its objectives while at the same time 

avoiding any breaches of the relevant collective agreements and maintaining excellent employee 

relations with the hospital’s union and non-union employees. 

• A number of multi-national corporations in recovery of 6- and 7- figure refunds of excess workers 

compensation premiums. 

• A major national retailer in relation to all aspects of labour, employment, human rights, health and 

safety law. We recently provided the client with ongoing legal advice during a successful employeeinitiated 

decertification application process. We have conducted in-house presentations for the 

Company’s human resources professionals in order to provide them with updates regarding recent 

developments in law. 

• A large school and charter bus company with respect to all aspects of their labour and employment 

needs in relation to the more than 1,000 employees working in Ontario. In the past four years, we 

have advised and represented the Company in relation to an ongoing union organizing campaign 

which has resulted in ten union certification applications. While the union’s organizing drive has been 

largely unsuccessful, we also provide labour relations advice to the Company with respect to 

collective agreement negotiations and labour arbitrations in their few unionized locations. Recently, 

we provided training for the Company’s managers in managing in a unionized environment.



Wendy Wendy-Anne Wendy Anne Berkenbosch 

Berkenbosch 

Edmonton 

Phone 780.429.6810 

Fax 780.702.4396 

Email wberkenbosch@davis.ca 

Biography 

Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch joined the Davis LLP partnership in 2010 and is a member 

of the firm’s Legal Research Practice Group. Wendy-Anne assists clients and other lawyers by providing 

research and analysis and by drafting comprehensive opinions, oral arguments and written submissions for all 

levels of court in all areas of the law. 

As member of the firm’s Employment and Labour Law Practice Group, Wendy-Anne also advises employers 

on labour, employment, administrative and human rights law issues. 

Wendy-Anne also practices in the area of environmental law. Her experience includes advising clients 

regarding potential environmental risks and liability, supporting the defence of environmental prosecutions and 

assisting in the application process for environmental regulatory approval. 

Publications 

• I Know What You Did Last Summer: Employers and Workplace Surveillance; (October 2011) 

• Practical Strategies for Legal Research; (June 2011) 

• Discovery (Western); Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (April 2011) 

• Appeal court rejects damages for sigma of dismissal: Merrill Lynch; The Lawyers Weekly (November 

2010) 

• Are We There Yet? The Duty to Accommodate and Meeting the Test for Undue Hardship; (November 

2010) 

• Alberta Court of Appeal Overturns $1.6 Million Award for Injury to Reputation and Goodwill; Davis LLP 

Employment & Labour Bulletin (September 2010) 

• Cross Country Check Up - Alcohol and Drug Testing Update; (September 2010) 

• 2010 Canadian Employment & Labour Law Conference Handout - Toronto; (May 2010) 

• Western Report - Alcohol and Drug Testing Update; (March 2009) 

• The Duty of Fairness in the Investigative Stage of Administrative Proceedings; (January 2009) 

• How Far is Too Far? Terminating and Accomodating Disabled Employees; (November 2008) 

• Franchise Update: Canadian Legislation, Mandatory Mediation Clauses, Price Maintenance, and Other 

Topics; Davis LLP Franchise Connection (July 2007) 

Directorships, Memberships & Professional Activities 

• Member, Law Society of Alberta 

• Member, Canadian Bar Association 

• Second Vice President, University of Alberta Alumni & Friends of the Faculty of Law Association 

Other Activities 

• Sessional Instructor, University of Alberta, Law 670: Professional Responsibility 

• Lecturer, University of Alberta, Law 555: Labour Law 

Education

• LL.B (with Distinction), University of Alberta, 1999 

• B.A. (with Distinction), The King's University College, 1995 

Place and Year of Call 

• Alberta, 2000 


2012 Employment & Labour Law Conference - Montreal


Karen Karen Bock 

Bock 

Toronto 

Phone 416.365.3523 

Fax 416.777.7444 

Email kbock@davis.ca 

Biography 


Karen Bock is a partner in the Employment & Labour Group at Davis LLP in 

Toronto. Karen has a general management-side labour and employment law practice. 

Karen advises public and private-sector employers on matters, such as employment standards, 

arbitrations, wrongful dismissal actions, human rights complaints, workplace safety and insurance 

matters. 

Karen received her LL.B. from the University of Toronto in 2000. Previously, she earned her B.A. 

(Hons.) from the University of Winnipeg. She also earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in English Literature 

from Brown University, and taught for some years at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. 

Selected Experience 

• Providing employers with legal advice during union certification attempts and organizing campaigns and 

related litigation before the Ontario Labour Relations Board 

• Defending wrongful dismissal claims and demands against various clients 

• Advising clients with respect to human rights issues, including the accommodation of disabled employees 

and the development and implementation of absenteeism programs. 

• Representing employers at proceedings before labour arbitrators, labour boards, human rights tribunals, 

workers compensation boards and tribunals. 

• Assisting in the representation of clients with respect to significant and complex litigation related to fraud 

and theft claims against an employee and his associates. 

• Reviewing and preparing employment contracts for senior executives and other employees in the context 

of various acquisitions and dispositions of businesses, including serving as the primary employment 

lawyer for numerous significant transactions for a major chartered bank. 

• Conducting and supervising employment and labour related due diligence on various transactions. 

• Drafting and/or reviewing employment policies and handbooks for various clients and advising such clients 

in the implementation and interpretation of employment policies. 

• Acting for various clients and several social services agencies in relation to the negotiation of collective 

agreements and providing assistance to various student unions in preparation for collective bargaining. 

• Developing numerous employment and consulting contracts for use in Canada by various clients. 

• Advising clients with respect to Workplace Safety and Insurance Disputes and representing clients before 

the WSIB. 

• Assisting clients with the development of strategies for downsizing and growing of operations, and coordinating 

with in house counsel and/or legal counsel in various jurisdictions. 

• Advising clients regarding the termination of employees including providing advice with respect to legal 

requirements and the practical considerations of termination. 

Recognition 

• Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History Prize

Publications 



• Employment Contracts and Disability: Making the Doctrine of Frustration Work for Your Business; The 

2001/2012 Lexpert CCCA Corporate Counsel Directory and Yearbook (November 2011) 

• Top 10 Tips for Hiring and Firing; Canadian Employment & Labour Conference 2011 - Calgary / Edmonton 

(October 2011) 

• Cross-Country Checkup - Ontario; Canadian Employment & Labour Conference 2011 - Calgary / 

Vancouver (October 2011) 

• "BUT I CAN'T EVEN READ THAT NOTE!" Getting the Medical Information You Need to Manage 

Employee Disabilities; Canadian Employment & Labour Conference 2011 - Vancouver (October 2011) 

• The Integrated Accessibility Regulation; Davis LLP Employment & Labour Alert (September 2011) 

• Workplace Incident Reporting Obligations: Broader Than They May Appear; Davis LLP Employment & 

Labour Alert (September 2011) 

• Beyond the "Bare Minimum Route" with Long-Term Employees; Davis LLP Employment & Labour Bulletin 

(August 2011) 


• Significant New Employer Obligations Respecting Workplace Violence and Harassment; Davis LLP 

Employment & Labour Alert (January 2010) 

• Cell Phones, Texting and Driving: Is Your Workplace Ready for the New Ban?; Davis LLP Employment & 


• The Last Word On Kerry; Davis LLP Pensions & Benefits Bulletin (August 2009) 

• Downsizing and Restructuring Employment Strategies in Uncertain Times; Davis LLP Employment & 

Labour Bulletin (May 2009) 


• Member, Law Society of Upper Canada 


Education 

• LL.B., University of Toronto, 2000 

• Ph.D., English Literature, Brown University 

• M.A., English Literature, Brown University 

• B.A., English Literature, (with Honours), University of Winnipeg 


• Ontario, 2002


Tania Tania Da Da Silva 

Silva 

Montreal 

Phone 514.392.8427 

Fax 514.392.8374 

Email tdasilva@davis.ca 

Biography 


Tania da Silva is an associate with Davis LLP's Montréal office and practices in 

the areas of commercial litigation and employment law. 

Tania joined Davis LLP in 2009 after the completion of her articles with the firm. 

Directorship, Membership & Professional Activities 

• Member of the Young Bar Association of Montréal 

Education 

• LL.L, University of Ottawa, 2008 

• LL.B., University of Ottawa, 2007 

• B.Sc.Soc., Concentration in criminology, University of Ottawa, 2004 


• Québec, 2009


Andre Andre Andre Giroux 

Giroux 

Montreal 

Phone 514.392.8912 

Fax 514.392.8379 

Email agiroux@davis.ca 

Biography 


André Giroux is a partner in the firm's Montréal office. André practises 

employment and labour law and advises employers on collective bargaining, restructuring and 

downsizing of workforces, wrongful dismissals, human rights, privacy legislation, grievance 

arbitration, labour standards and alternative dispute resolution. 

Andre represents employers before federal and provincial labour boards, privacy commissions, 

human rights tribunals, grievance arbitrators, federally appointed adjudicators as well as mediators 

and conciliators. 

He also represents clients before the courts of civil jurisdiction such as the Superior Court and the 

Court of Appeal of Quebec, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. 

Publications 

• Recent Developments in Canadian Employment Law (Quebec Update); Canadian Employment & Labour 

Conference 2011 - Calgary / Edmonton / Vancouver (October 2011) 

Directorship, Membership & Professional Activities 

• Canadian Bar Association 

Education 

• LL.B., Université de Montréal, 1992 

• B.B.A., Université du Québec à Montréal, 1989 


• Quebec, 1993


Pablo Pablo Pablo Guzman 

Guzman 

Montreal 

Phone 514.392.8406 

Fax 514.392.8376 

Email pguzman@davis.ca 

Biography 


Pablo Guzman is a partner in the Montréal office of Davis LLP. Pablo is a litigator and 

practises in the areas of commercial law, employment and labour law, franchise and 

distribution law and the enforcement of creditors' rights. He routinely counsels clients in the drafting, review, 

management and enforcement of contracts and security instruments in his areas of practice. 

Pablo often provides counsel on business-related legislation, including Québec's Consumer Protection Act, 

the Charter of the French Language, the Civil Code of Québec and privacy legislation, as well as complex 

litigation issues. 

He has appeared before the Québec Superior and Appeal Courts and provincial, federal and international 

administrative and arbitration tribunals. 

Pablo was born in El Salvador, Central America and moved to Canada in 1976. 

He obtained a B.A. in Political Science at Université du Québec - Montréal in 1989, specializing in 

international relations. 

He received his Bachelor of Laws degree from the Université de Montréal in 1992. 

Publications 

• Franchising in Canada: A Guide for Franchisors and their Legal Counsel; Davis LLP Franchise Article 

(January 2012) 

• Beyond the "Bare Minimum Route" with Long-Term Employees; Davis LLP Employment & Labour Bulletin 

(August 2011) 

• Social Networking in the Workplace: How Business is Logging Into FaceBook and Other Social Media; 

Davis LLP Employment & Labour Conference (November 2010) 

• Quebec Hypothecs; (November 2010) 

• Doing Business in Quebec: Substantial Increase in Fines for Breach of Language Laws; Davis LLP 

Quebec Matters Bulletin (November 2010) 


• A Quebec Expansion: Easier Than You Might Think; Canadian Franchise Association 2010 National 

Convention (May 2010) 

• Franchise Update: Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants, Enforcing Arbitration Clauses, and Other 

Topics; Davis LLP Franchise Connection (July 2008) 

• Franchise Update: Quebec Law, Business Immigration for Franchisors, and Running Contests in Canada; 

Davis LLP Franchise Connection (April 2007) 


• Member, Mexico-Canada Chamber of Commerce 

• Member, Canada-Chile Chamber of Commerce 

• Member, Lord Reading Society (an association of English speaking litigation attorneys)

Education 

• LL.B., Université de Montréal, 1992 

• B.A., Université du Québec à Montréal, 1989 


• Quebec, 1994 


2012 Employment & Labour Law Conference - Montreal


Tamara Tamara Hunter 

Hunter 

Vancouver 

Phone 604.643.2952 

Fax 604.605.3712 

Email tamara_hunter@davis.ca 

Biography 


Tamara Hunter is a member of the firm's Litigation Department and practises in the areas of administrative 

law, professional regulation law, freedom of information and privacy law and commercial litigation. She acts for 

a variety of professional regulatory bodies on matters involving registration, professional disciplinary 

proceedings and related litigation. 

She has conducted numerous hearings before professional disciplinary tribunals and has represented 

professional regulatory bodies before the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the British 

Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the British Columbia Court of 

Appeal. 

Tamara has represented both private sector and public sector organizations before the Office of the 

Information and Privacy Commissioner and in related litigation. 

Born in New Westminster, B.C., Tamara obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from Simon Fraser University in 

1988. She received the Chancellor's Entrance Scholarship and majored in both economics and business 

administration. 

Tamara then attended the University of British Columbia where she received her Law Degree in 1990. 

Prior to joining Davis, Tamara was a Law Clerk to the Right Honourable Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme 

Court of Canada. 


• Gichuru v. Law Society of British Columbia (Supreme Court of British Columbia); Represented the Law 

Society of British Columbia in a human rights matter (April 2010) 

Publications 

• Health Law Update: Constitutional Law News, Procurement Law News, and Privacy Law News; Davis LLP 

Health Law Bulletin (March 2012) 

• Google's Unified Privacy Policy is Now Live; Davis LLP Privacy Bulletin (March 2012) 

• Amendments to PIPEDA - Breach Notification Provisions; Davis LLP Privacy Bulletin (March 2012) 

• Amendments to BC FOIPPA - Privacy Impact Assessments Required in Some Circumstances; Davis LLP 

Privacy Bulletin (March 2012) 

• The Ontario Court of Appeal's Decision in Jones vs. Tsige - What is all the fuss about?; Davis LLP Privacy 

Bulletin (March 2012) 

• Are You Prepared to Respond to a Breach: When, Not if, It Occurs?; Nymity.com (February 2012) 

• Citi Cards Canada v. Pleasance; Davis LLP Banking & Financial Services Bulletin (April 2011) 

• Retaliation in B.C. Human Rights Law; Davis LLP Employment & Labour Conference 2010 - Vancouver 

(November 2010) 

• Examining Privacy Issues with Respect to Solicitor-Client Privilege: The Aftermath of Blood Tribe; Davis 

LLP Article (September 2010) 

• Protecting Privacy When Employees Depart; Davis LLP Privacy Bulletin (July 2010)



• Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Blood Tribe case and solicitor-client privilege; (December 

2008) 

• Balancing Disclosure and Transparency with Privacy Law Limits; The Canadian Institute Advanced 

Administrative Law & Practice Conference (May 2008) 

• Will Notification of Information Security Breaches Soon Become Mandatory?; Canadian Privacy Law 

Review (August 2007) 

• Are You Ready to Deal With an Information Security Breach?; Davis LLP Privacy Alert (September 2006) 

• Privacy Compliance Program; Davis LLP Article (February 2004) 

Professional Experience 

• Ms. Hunter acts for a variety of professional associations on matters involving professional disciplinary 

proceedings and related litigation. She has conducted numerous hearings before professional disciplinary 

tribunals 

• Ms. Hunter has acted for corporate and individual clients in a variety of commercial disputes. She has 

appeared as counsel at all court levels in British Columbia. 

• Experienced in freedom of information and privacy law, Ms. Hunter has represented a number of clients 

(both corporate and institutional) on matters before the Information and Privacy Commissioner of B.C., the 

Supreme Court of British Columbia, the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of 

Canada. Ms. Hunter has also spoken on the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic 

Documents Act and the B.C. Personal Information Protection Act and issues surrounding the impact of 

these statutes on businesses. 

• Ms. Hunter has assisted numerous organizations with privacy law compliance and risk management 

strategies relating to privacy matters. 


• Governor of the Law Foundation of British Columbia 

• Canadian Bar Association (Administrative, Freedom of Information & Privacy Law, and Women Lawyers 

Forum Subsections) 

• Founding Member and past Co-Chair, Freedom of Information & Privacy Law Subsection 

• Member, Westcoast L.E.A.F. 

• Member, B.C. Civil Liberties Association 

• Member, B.C. Privacy Professionals Network 

• Member, Bard on the Beach Theatre Society 

Publications and Seminars 

• Protecting Privacy When Employees Depart July, 2010 

• Presentation at PIPA October 2009 Conference "Solving the Privacy Puzzle" 

• Presentation at Canadian Institute Conference on Privacy Compliance, January, 2009 

• Presentation at Pacific Business & Law Institute Conference, "Freedom of Information - Key Issues in 

Working with Regulatory Bodies", February, 2009 

• CBA Privacy Pages, "Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Blood Tribe case and solicitor-client 

privilege", December 18, 2008 

• Presentation at Canadian Institute Conference on Advanced Administrative Law & Practice, May, 2008 

• Presentation for PIPA Conference 2007, "Managing Employee Personal Information: Cross Border and 

Outsourcing Challenges" 

• Privacy Law Alert Bulletin (Notification of Information Security Breaches), June, 2007 

• Privacy Law Alert Bulletin (Information Security Breach), September, 2006 

• Privacy Update 2005, Continuing Legal Education Course Presenter, November, 2005 

• Privacy Law Alert Bulletin (CIBC Outsourcing), October, 2005



• Seminar for Vancouver Board of Trade, Crime Task Force on Privacy Law, June, 2004 

• Privacy Continuing Legal Education Course Presenter, February, 2004 

• Presentation to Special Legislative Committee on FOIPPA, January, 2004 

• Numerous Private Client Seminars on Privacy Legislation, 2003 and 2004 

Volunteer Work 

• Pro Bono Law of B.C. - Top Ten Fundraiser for 2009 "Advice-a-thon" 

• PAC Fundraising 

Education 

• LL.B., University of British Columbia, 1990 

• BA, Simon Fraser University, 1988 


• British Columbia, 1992


Richard Richard J. J. Nixon 

Nixon 

Toronto 

Phone 416.365.3521 

Fax 416.777.7420 

Email rnixon@davis.ca 

Biography 


Richard J. Nixon is a partner specializing in employment and labour law practising 

in Toronto. He provides strategic advice to major employers in the nuclear energy, cable broadcasting, 

pharmaceutical, insurance, transportation, auto parts, security, construction engineering, consumer 

products and forest products industries. 

Richard is a trusted advisor on a broad range of employment matters, including executive employment 

agreements and executive terminations. He has a proven track record of successfully representing 

employers before Canadian labour relations boards, human rights tribunals, arbitration boards and other 

tribunals. 

Richard is a popular lecturer for the Advanced Program in Human Resources Management at the Rotman 

School of Management at the University of Toronto. 

He is also frequently invited to chair and speak at conferences on labour and employment law. 


• United Steelworkers, Local 4153 v. A. Raymond Tinnerman Manufacturing Hamilton Inc. (Martin 

Grievance) (Ont. Lab. Arb.) (R.O. McDowell); (March 2011) 

• City of Hamilton v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 18 [2010] 

O.L.R.D. No. 5051 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (December 2010) 

• The International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of 

America (UAW-CLC) and its Local 251, v. Vannatter Group Inc., Transcast Precision Inc. et al., [2010] 

O.L.R.D. No. 4055 (ON L.R.B.) (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (October 2010) 

• Rogers Cable Communications Inc. v. IBEW, [2009] CIRB LD 2219, (Can. Ind. Rel. Bd.); (October 

2009) 

• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v. Johnson Controls Ltd. [2009] O.L.R.D. 

No. 3352 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (September 2009) 

• Teamsters Local Union 938 v. Stock Transportation Ltd. [2009] O.L.R.D. No. 2337 (Ont. Lab. Rel. 

Bd.); (June 2009) 

• United Steelworkers Local 1-2693 v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Kimberly-Clark Inc., Neenah 

Paper, Inc. and Neenah Paper Company of Canada, Eagle Logging Inc., Buchanan Forest Products 

Ltd., Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. 2008 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (May 2008) 

• General Electric Canada c.o.b. GE Nuclear Products v. CAW - Canada, CIRB Decision No. 401 (Can. 

Ind. Rel. Bd.); (February 2008) 

• United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1000A v. Nike Canada Ltd. [2006] 

O.L.R.D. No. 2482 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (July 2006) 

• Bauer Nike Hockey Inc. and G.M.P., Local 366 (Ottley) (Re) [2005] 139 L.A.C. (4th) 87 (M. K. 

Saltman) (Ont. Lab. Arb.); (April 2005) 

• Rogers Cable Inc. v. Public Service Alliance of Canada and Christopher Wilson, CIRB Letter Decision 

No. 1165 (Can. Ind. Rel. Bd.); (December 2004) 

• Bauer Nike Hockey, 2003 ONWSIAT 2752, Decision No. 2050/03 (Workplace Safety and Insurance 

Appeal Tribunal); (December 2003) 

• Alcan Inc. [2003] O.L.R.D. No. 2497 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (July 2003)



• Alcan Aluminum Ltd. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 343 (Long Term Disability Grievance) 

[2001] O.L.A.A. No. 275 (Ont. Lab. Arb.)(J.H. Devlin); (April 2001) 

• Alcan Aluminum Ltd. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 343 (Health and Safety Grievance) 

[2001] O.L.A.A. No. 253 (Ont. Lab. Arb.)(D.K.L Starkman); (April 2001) 

• Hamilton Street Railway Co. v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 107 (Davidson Grievance) [2000] 

O.L.A.A. No. 921 (P. Knopf)(Ont. Lab. Arb.); (November 2000) 

• Alcan Aluminium Ltd. v. United Assoc. of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting 

Industry of the US & Canada, Local 221 v. United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 

8754 [2000] OLRB Rep. March/April 159 (Ont. Lab. Rel Bd.); (April 2000) 

• Alcan Aluminium Ltd. v. United Assoc. of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting 

Industry of the US & Canada, Local 221 v. United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 

8754 [2000] O.L.R.D. No. 287 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (February 2000) 

• Bauer Inc. v. Glass, Moulders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers International Union, Local 366 

(Dzourelov Grievance) (1999) 82 L.A.C. (4th) 263 (Solomatenko) (Ont. Lab. Arb.); (June 1999) 

• R. v. Bauer Inc. [1999] O.J. No. 1198 (Ont. Ct. Appeal); (April 1999) 

• Saint John's Rehabilitation Hospital v. CUPE, Local 790 v. Brookfield LePage Johnson Controls (R. H. 

Ambranky)(Ont. Lab. Arb.); (November 1998) 

• Bauer Inc. v. Glass, Moulders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers International Union (Janicki 

Grievance) [1998] O.L.A.A. No. 574 (A. Kruger) (Ont. Lab. Arb.); (July 1998) 

• Drummond v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - M.N.R.) [1998] T.C.J. No. 309 (Tax Ct. of 

Canada); (April 1998) 

• Kimberly-Clark Inc. v. Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada, Local 1-92-4 (Meo Grievance) 

[1996] O.L.A.A. No. 46 (M. Bendel) (Ont. Lab. Arb.); (October 1996) 

• Elizabeth Arden Canada, a division of U L Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - 

M.N.R.) [1996] T.C.J. No. 854 (Tax. Ct. of Canada); (July 1996) 

• Poirier v. Ontario New Home Warranty Program [1995] O.J. No. 752 (Ont. Div. Ct.); (March 1995) 

• London Terminal Employees' Association v. Suncor, Sunoco Group, Sunoco Inc. [1994] O.L.R.D. No. 

4839 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (December 1994) 

• Re Canstar Sports Group Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, Local 308 

[1994] O.L.A.A. No. 252 (M. Bendel) (Ont. Lab. Arb.); (April 1994) 

• Group 4 C.P.S. Limited [1994] OLRB Rep. April 400 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (April 1994) 

• Air Canada et al. [1993] 18 CLRBR (2d) 295 (Can. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (February 1993) 

• Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, v. 

Ideal Railings Limited [1990] OLRB Rep. December 1284 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (December 1990) 

• Johnson Controls Ltd. [1989] O.L.R.D. No. 1010 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (May 1989) 

• Burns International Security Services Ltd. and Canada Post Corporation [1989] 3 CLRBR 2d) 264 

(Can. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (May 1989) 

• Drywall, Acoustic, Lathing and Insulation, Local 675, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of 

America v. Ben Plastering Limited, c.o.b. Belmont Plastering Co. [1988] O.L.R.D. No. 139 (Ont. Lab. 

Rel. Bd.); (December 1988) 

• Canadian Pneumatic Control Contractors Association v. United Association of Journeymen and 

Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry [1988] OLRB Rep. September 864 (Ont. Lab. 

Rel. Bd.); (September 1988) 

• Landeghem v. The Labourers' International Union of North America et al. v. Double S Construction 

[1988] OLRB Rep. August 800 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (August 1988) 

• Carpenters' District Council of Toronto and Vicinity on behalf of Carpenters Local Union 27 et al. v. 

270915 Ontario Limited et al. [1987] OLRB Rep. July 1003 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (June 1987) 

• United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. W.G. Thompson & Sons Limited [1987] 

OLRB Rep. May 787 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (May 1987) 

• Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506, v. Disney Display [1986] OLRB Rep. 

February 241 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (February 1986)



• McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural 

Implement Workers, Local 1967 et al. [1985] OLRB Rep. December 1750 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); 

(December 1985) 

• Scott v. Foster Wheeler Limited (1985), 6 C.H.R.R.D/2885 (Hunter, Ont. Bd. of Inq.); (May 1985) 

• Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union - Local 414 AFLCIO - CLC, v. Dominion Stores 

Limited, Willett Foods Limited, Termarg Food Services Limited [1985] OLRB Rep. March 516 (Ont. 

Lab. Rel. Bd.); (March 1985) 

• Zorika Flanjak v. Local 310, Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union (Shoe Division) and 

Greb Industries, A Division of Warrington, Inc., [1985] OLRB Rep. March 415 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); 

(March 1985) 

• International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers, Local 1967 and 

McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd. [1984] 47 O.R. (2d) 78 (Ont. Div. Ct.); (June 1984) 

• Ontario Nurses' Assn. v. Hamilton Civic Hospitals [1983] O.J. No. 1205 (Ont. Div. Ct.); (September 

1983) 

• Christian Labour Association of Canada v. Carroll Electric (1982) Limited [1983] OLRB Rep. August 

1282 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (August 1983) 

• Johnson Controls Ltd. [1983] OLRB Rep. May 641 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (May 1983) 

• Ontario Nurses' Association [1982] OLRB Rep. October 1546 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.); (October 1982) 

• Re Purity Packaging Ltd. and Canadian Paperworkers Union, Local 685 [1982] 5 L.A.C. (3d) 135 (P. 

J. Brunner)(Ont. Lab. Arb.); (June 1982) 

Recognition 

• Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory (Employment Law - Management), Repeatedly Recommended, 

2006 - Present 

• Practical Law Company's Which Lawyer? (Labour and Employment - Canada, Ontario), 2011 

• Best Lawyers in Canada (Labour and Employment Law), 2006 

Publications 

• When are Independent Contractors Really Employees; Canadian Employment & Labour Conference 

2011 - Calgary / Edmonton (October 2011) 

• "BUT I CAN'T EVEN READ THAT NOTE!" Getting the Medical Information You Need to Manage 

Employee Disabilities; Canadian Employment & Labour Conference 2011 - Vancouver (October 2011) 







• Cell Phones, Texting and Driving: Is Your Workplace Ready for the New Ban?; Davis LLP 

Employment & Labour Alert (September 2009) 



• Just cause round-up: what does one have to do to get fired now anyway?; (April 2008) 


• Fellow, The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers 

• Member, Board of Directors, Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation 

• Senior vice-president, Government Affairs, Human Resources Professional Association of Ontario



• Lecturer, Advanced Human Resources Management - HRPAO Program at the Rotman School of 

Management, University of Toronto 

• Lecturer, The Osgoode Certificate in HR Law for HR Professionals program sponsored by Osgoode 

Hall Law School, York University 

• Co-chair, professional development seminar on "Reducing Workers' Compensation Costs", Institute 

of Chartered Accountants of Ontario 



Education 


• M.B.A., University of Western Ontario, 1975 

• B.A., Economics, University of Western Ontario, 1973 


• Ontario, 1982


Michael Michael Richards 

Richards 

Toronto 

Phone 416.941.5395 

Fax 416.777.7427 

Email mrichards@davis.ca 

Biography 


Michael Richards is a partner specializing in employment and labour law in 

Toronto. Michael was called to the bar in both Ontario and British Columbia and has represented 

clients before various levels of courts in both provinces, before administrative tribunals, at 

arbitrations, in mediation and at other negotiations, including collective bargaining. 

After graduating from the University of Toronto, Michael returned to British Columbia where he 

was the law clerk to Madam Justice Jo-Ann Prowse of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. 

Michael articled in the Vancouver office of Davis LLP and was called to the British Columbia 

Bar before transferring to the Toronto office where he has practised since early 2001. 

Michael's practice in employment and labour law includes providing advice to both national and 

international organizations on a daily basis and representing clients with respect to various labour 

and employment issues including: 

• The recruitment, hiring and termination of employees. 

• Providing advice with respect to group terminations and business closures. 

• The successful and cost effective defence of wrongful dismissal claims, grievance and human right 

complaints. 

• The preparation of employment, consulting and independent contractor agreements including the 

provision of advice with respect to the enforceability of non-solicitation, non-competition and 

confidentiality agreements. 

• The negotiation and interpretation of collective agreements. 

• The interpretation and application of employment standards legislation, workplace safety and 

insurance legislation, occupational health and safety, and human rights legislation. 

Finally, Michael's practice also includes privacy law and advising businesses in Ontario with 

respect to their obligations under privacy legislation, including performing privacy audits and 

assisting clients in the development of privacy policies compliant with applicable legislation. 

Michael has been with Davis LLP since 1998. 


• Represented Visualsonics, a Toronto-based company with high-frequency ultrasound technology, in 

its sale to SonoSite for $80 million. 

• Represented Harman International Industries, Inc., a large U.S.-based international, publicly-traded 

company in the acquisition of QNX Software Systems Ltd. 

• Represented a Canadian Olympics candidate in a dispute over selection to the 2001 Olympics team 

• Developing and implementing strategies for the retention of key employees in several acquisitions of 

knowledge/skill-based enterprises in the high-tech and financial services sectors



• Acting for a national clothing retailer and for several U.S. and European companies in the 

development and implementation of employment policy and procedure manuals 

• Reviewing and preparing employment contracts for senior executives and other employees in the 

context of various acquisitions and positions of businesses. 

Publications 

• Understanding Cloud Computing; Davis LLP Litigation Breakfast Seminar Materials (November 2011) 

• Cross-Country Checkup - Ontario (Edmonton); (October 2011) 







• Cell Phones, Texting and Driving: Is Your Workplace Ready for the New Ban?; Davis LLP 

Employment & Labour Alert (September 2009) 




• Member, Law Society of British Columbia 



• Member, Ontario Bar Association 

• Member, British Columbia Bar Association 

• Member, Advocates Society 

Volunteer Work 

• Mike is actively committed to the arts, providing pro-bono advice to not-for-profit arts organizations 

such as Arraymusic, a Toronto-based organization promoting experimental classical music. In 

addition, Mike has served on the board of directors of Danny Grossman Dance Company since early 

2004 and was elected chair in 2006. Mike's involvement with the company comes at a critical time as 

the company seeks to preserve the work of its namesake, both legally and practically, to ensure 

preservation of his art. 

Education 


• B.Comm. (Honours), The University of British Columbia, 1996 


• British Columbia, 2000 

• Ontario, 2001

Il dit...elle dit...et maintenant?!: 

Comment mener une enquête en 

milieu de travail avec succès 

Conférence sur le droit du travail et de l’emploi, 

mai 2012 

Conférence sur le droit de l’emploi et du travail 2012 - Montréal 

Karen Bock, Toronto 

Pourquoi ce sujet? 

• Nombre croissant de plaintes auprès des employeurs 

• Nombre croissant d’obligations d’entreprendre des 

enquêtes (par ex.: PL 168) 

• Champ de responsabilité grandissant pour les 

employeurs qui mènent des enquêtes insuffisantes 

• Imposition intentionnelle ou négligente de souffrance psychologique 

• Conduite d’une « enquête négligente » 

• Le délit de « négligence grossière » 

• Atteinte à la vie privée 

• Diffamation 

• Séquestration 


• Des questions plus sensibles et difficiles à enquêter 

• Allégations portant sur les droits de la personne 

• Usage inapproprié de renseignements confidentiels 

• Politiques de harcèlement et de violence selon la Loi sur 

la santé et la sécurité au travail de l’Ontario 

© Davis S.E.N.C.R.L., 2012 1


• Une enquête efficace implique une gestion efficace des 

risques 

• Relations publiques, réputation 

• Réclamations pécuniaires par les employés 

Identifier l’étendue de l’enquête 

• Déterminer l’étendue et les risques potentiels le plus 

tôt possible: 

• Une enquête formelle est-elle nécessaire? La résolution de 

différends/la médiation sont-elles de meilleures approches? 

• Consulter et conformez-vous à vos politiques et/ou à vos 

conventions collectives 

• Si possible, obtenir un résumé écrit de la plainte avant de 

rencontrer le plaignant 

• Une enquête n’est pas une « partie de pêche » – Concentrez 

sur ce qui est pertinent à la mauvaise conduite alléguée 

Préparer l’enquête 

• Qui va mener l’enquête? 

• Un enquêteur à l’interne? 

• Un expert externe - ex.: un enquêteur privé? 

• Un avocat – le rapport d’enquête pourrait être protégé par le 

secret professionnel et exonéré de divulgation? 

• Ont-ils une formation appropriée et/ou une expérience en 

matière 

• d’enquêtes en milieu de travail 

• de plaintes d’harcèlement sexuel ou de discrimination? 

• L’enquêteur est-il neutre et impartial? 

• L’enquêteur sera-t-il également le décideur? 



Mener une enquête juste et équitable 

• Éviter les enquêtes partiales ou des notions 

préconçues qui ne sont pas étayées par de la preuve 

– ne sautez pas aux conclusions! 

• Assurez-vous que l’information recueillie est complète, 

juste, bien documentée et bien organisée 


• Des changements provisionnels au statut d’emploi du 

plaignant ou de l’intimé sont-ils nécessaires? 

• prudent d’établir les souhaits du plaignant et de les 

accommoder (dans la mesure du raisonnable) 

• gardez en tête les droits à la vie privée et à la réputation de 

l’intimé « présomption d’innocence » 


� Entrevues 

• Menez les entrevues dès que possible, pendant que les 

mémoires sont fraiches et vives 

• Les entrevues face-à-face avec les principaux témoins 

sont cruciales 

• Assurez-vous de la sécurité de l’enquêteur et des 

personnes interviewées 

• Assurer-vous de la confidentialité et de la protection des 

entrevues 

• Gardez un dossier complet des entrevues 




� Planifiez l’ordre des entrevues 

� Planifiez chaque entrevue d’avance 

� Le processus est confidentiel 

� Les personnes interviewées ne devraient pas discuter du 

dossier ou de leur entrevue avec autrui 

� Évitez le « partage » et la « comparaison » d’information entre 

les témoins 

� L’employeur ne devrait pas garantir la confidentialité – les 

allégations seront généralement divulguées à l’intimé 

Interviewer le plaignant 

• Déterminez ce qui s'est passé - qui, quoi, où, quand, 

comment - prenez des notes précises et exactes 

• Recueillez la preuve documentaire soigneusement 

• Identifiez les principaux témoins qui ont une 

connaissance directe ou personnelle et qui devraient 

être interviewés 

• Évaluez les risques potentiels à l'organisation 

Interviewer l’intimé 

• Droit: 

• De connaitre la pleine portée des allégations 

• D’avoir la chance d’y répondre pleinement 

• À une enquête opportune de la plainte 

• Aucun droit: 

• « au silence » – il est possible d’inférer un acte fautif si le 

témoin refuse de répondre aux questions 

• à un avocat durant l’entrevue (mais il serait prudent de le 

permettre dans certains cas) 



Conclure l’enquête 

• Évaluez l’information et identifier les vides – déterminez si ces vides peuvent 

être comblés par une entrevue complémentaire ou par des preuves 

documentaires 

• Si l’enquêteur est une tierce partie, révisez son rapport attentivement 

• Ne vous fiez pas aveuglement aux conclusions à elles seules 

• En cas d’ambiguïté dans le rapport, demandez des clarifications 

• Faire une détermination 

• La plainte est confirmée par l’enquête 

• La plainte n’est pas confirmée par l’enquête 

• L’enquête n’est pas conclusive 

• Le fardeau de la preuve est celui de la «prépondérance des probabilités» 

• Est-il plus probable que non que l’événement soit survenu? 


• Dès qu’une détermination est faite, il est essentiel d’agir: 

• Communiquez le résultat de l’enquête (mais pas 

nécessairement le rapport final) aux parties intéressées 

• Si la plainte est corroborée, déterminez un remède 

approprié pour le plaignant et une sanction appropriée, le 

cas échéant, pour l’intimé 

• Prenez les mesures nécessaires pour éviter que la 

situation se répète (important de faire un suivi pour limiter 

la responsabilité du fait d’autrui de l’employeur) 


• Si la plainte est mal fondée, déterminez si une réponse est tout 

de même appropriée, comme par exemple une formation ou un 

service de conseil 

• Si l’enquête n’est pas conclusive, expliquez aux parties qu’il ne 

s’agit pas d’un équivalent d’« innocence » ou de « culpabilité » 

• Rappelez à toutes les parties leur obligation de confidentialité 

• Rappelez à toutes les parties que les représailles ne sont pas 

tolérées 



Mener des enquêtes en milieu de travail avec 

succès – Pointes clés 

• Identifiez clairement la portée de l'enquête et identifiez les opportunités 

pour la gestion proactive des risques pour l'employeur 

• Demandez-vous si une enquête formelle est nécessaire 

• Choisissez l'enquêteur approprié 

• Procédez à une enquête équitable – collecte de données minutieuse et 

opportune de l'information de toutes les personnes ayant une 

connaissance directe et pertinente 

• Agissez toujours de bonne foi 

• Documentez, documentez, documentez! 

Mener des enquêtes en milieu de travail avec succès 

• Ce qu’il faut ne pas faire: Quelques 

décisions 

Disotell v. Kraft Canada Inc. -2010 

• M. Disotell a été le sujet de commentaires sexuelles 

désobligeants et d’insinuations alléguant qu'il était 

homosexuel 

• Kraft avait une politique de harcèlement interdisant de tels 

comportements 

• M. Disotell a porté de nombreuses plaintes auprès de son 

superviseur, qui a refusé d'appuyer une plainte formelle et 

qui lui a indiqué qu'une plainte pourrait entraîner son 

congédiement 

• M. Disotell a pris un congé de maladie, a engagé un avocat 



Disotell v. Kraft Canada Inc. - 2010 

• Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario 

• Congédiement déguisé – 12 mois de salaire (~ 

44,000$) 

• Kraft n’a pas administré la politique sur le harcèlement 

exigeant aux superviseurs de dénoncer les incidents 

d’harcèlement au RH 

• Aucune enquête sérieuse à l’égard de l’harcèlement allégué 

• Kraft n’a pas questionné les parties concernées (celles 

nommées par M. Disotell) 

• Kraft a refusé l’offre de M. Disotell de fournir des précisions 

Elgert v. Home Hardware Stores Limited - 

2011 

• Home Hardware a congédié M. Elgert à la suite d’allégations 

d’harcèlement sexuel 

• L’incident allégué a été dénoncé par un autre employé (pas 

la victime) 

� Enquête: 

� L’enquêteur était un ami du père de la victime alléguée 

� La déclaration de la victime présumée n’a pas été prise 

� Le témoin n’a pas été questionné 

� M. Elgert n’a pas reçu des précisions sur les allégations 

portées contre lui 


2011 

• La Cour d’appel de l’Alberta 

• Congédiement injustifié – 2 ans de paie tenant lieu de préavis 

• Dommages-intérêts (rare) – 75,000$ 

• La victime présumée n’a pas déposée une plainte formelle 

• L’enquêteur n’avait pas la formation ni l’expérience requise pour traiter 

des allégations d’harcèlement sexuel et des enquêtes en milieu de travail 

• L’enquêteur manquait d’impartialité parce qu’il était ami du père de la 

victime alléguée et avait décidé que M. Elgert était coupable avant de 

l’avoir rencontré 

• M. Elgert n’a pas reçu des précisions avant 10 jours suivant son 

congédiement 



Vernon v. British Columbia (Liquor 

Distribution Branch) - 2012 

• Mme Vernon avait un style de gestion pragmatique – jamais de plainte 

contre elle et ses évaluations de rendement étaient excellentes 

• Une plainte a été portée contre Mme Vernon pour comportement nonprofessionnel 

par un employé qui se sentait harcelé/embarrassé 

� Enquête 

• Questionné le plaignant et 7 autres employés 

• Mme Vernon n’a pas été donnée la chance de répondre aux 

allégations 

• La LDB a offert une lettre de référence à Mme Vernon en échange de 

sa démission volontaire - refusée 

• Mme Vernon a été mise sur congé sans solde pendant un mois et a 

ultimement été congédiée 



• Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique 

• Congédiement injustifié – préavis de 18 mois (~97,000$) 

• Dommages-intérêts alourdis – 35,000$ 

• Mme Vernon n’a pas été donnée la chance de répondre aux allégations 

• Le questionnement de Mme Vernon « fautif, choquant et non nécessaire » 

- le dossier disciplinaire vierge de Mme Vernon et ses évaluations de 

rendement positives n’ont pas été considérés 

• On aurait crié après les témoins et les accusés d’avoir menti si leurs 

réponses aux questions supportaient Mme Vernon 

• Dommages-intérêts punitifs - 50,000$ 

• L’offre d’une lettre de référence en échange de sa démission était 

« répréhensible » 



HE SAID. SHE SAID. NOW WHAT? 

Conducting Effective Workplace 

Investigations 

Why this Topic? 

Employment & Labour Law Client Conference 

May 2012 


Karen Bock, Toronto 

• Increasing number of complaints to employers 

• Increasing obligations to undertake investigations (eg. 

Bill 168) 

• Increasing scope of liability for employers for conducting 

deficient investigations 

• intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress 

• conducting a “negligent investigation” 

• the tort of “gross negligence” 

• violation of privacy 

• defamation 

• false imprisonment 


• More sensitive and difficult matters to investigate 

• Human rights allegations 

• Improper use of confidential information 

• Harassment and violence policies under the Occupational 

Health and Safety Act 



• Effective investigations mean effective risk 

management 

• public relations, reputation 

• monetary claims by employees 

Identifying the Scope of the Investigation 

• Determine scope and potential risks at earliest 

opportunity: 

• Is a formal investigation necessary? Is conflict 

resolution/mediation a better approach? 

• Consult and comply with your policies and/or collective 

agreement 

• Get written summary of complaint before meeting with 

complainant, if possible 

• Investigation not a “fishing expedition” – focus on what is 

relevant to the alleged misconduct 

Setting up the Investigation 

• Who will conduct the investigation? 

• Internal investigator? 

• Third party expert - e.g., private investigator? 

• Lawyer – investigation report may be privileged and exempt 

from disclosure? 

• Do they have appropriate training and/or experience in 

• workplace investigations 

• sexual harassment or discrimination complaints? 

• Is the investigator neutral and unbiased? 

• Will the investigator be the decision-maker too? 



Conducting a Fair Investigation 

• Avoid biased investigations or pre-conceived notions 

unsupported by evidence—no jumping to conclusions! 

• Ensure information gathered is complete, fair welldocumented 

and well-organized 


• Are any interim changes to the complainant’s or 

respondent’s employment status necessary? 

• prudent to ascertain complainant’s wishes and accommodate 

(within reason) 

• be cognizant of respondent’s privacy and reputational rights ( 

“innocent until proven guilty”) 


� Interviews 

• Conduct interviews soon as possible, while memories 

are fresh and vivid 

• Face to face interviews of key witnesses are crucial 

• Ensure security of interviewer and interviewees 

• Ensure privacy and confidentiality of interviews 

• Keep full and complete record of interviews 




� Plan order of interviews 

� Plan each interview in advance 

� Process is confidential 

� Interviewees should not discuss matter or their interview with 

anyone else 

� Avoid the “sharing” and “comparing” of information amongst 

witnesses 

� Employer should not guarantee confidentiality – allegations 

will usually be disclosed to respondent 

Interviewing the Complainant 

• Determine what happened - who, what, where, when, 

how – take careful and accurate notes 

• Carefully gather documentary evidence 

• Identify key witnesses who have direct or first-hand 

knowledge and who should be interviewed 

• Assess potential risks to organization 

Interviewing the Respondent 

• Right to: 

• know the full scope of the allegations 

• opportunity to respond fully 

• timely investigation of complaint 

• No Right to: 

• “silence” – can infer wrongdoing if witness refuses to answer 

• legal counsel during an interview (but may be prudent to 

permit in certain cases) 



Concluding the Investigation 

• Assess the information and identify gaps - determine if gaps can be filled 

by follow-up interviews or documentary evidence 

• If investigator is a third party, carefully review their report. 

• Do not rely blindly on the conclusions alone 

• If any ambiguity in the report, seek clarification 

• Make a determination: 

• Complaint is substantiated by investigation 

• Complaint is unsubstantiated by investigation 

• Investigation is inconclusive 

• Standard of proof is “balance of probabilities” 

• Is it more likely than not that the event occurred? 


• Once a determination is made, it is crucial to take action: 

• Communicate the outcome of the investigation (but not 

necessarily the final report) to the parties 

• If complaint is substantiated, determine appropriate remedy for 

complainant and appropriate discipline, if any, for respondent 

• Take steps to prevent future occurrences (follow-up response is 

important for limiting extent of employer’s vicarious liability) 


• If the complaint is unsubstantiated, consider whether response is 

still appropriate, such a training or counselling 

• If the investigation is inconclusive, explain to parties that this is 

not equivalent to “innocent” or “guilty” 

• Remind all parties of the obligation of confidentiality 

• Remind all parties that reprisals are not permitted 




Investigations Key Take-aways 

• Clearly identify the scope of the investigation and identify opportunities for 

proactive risk management for employer 

• Consider whether a formal investigation is required 

• Choose the appropriate investigator 

• Conduct a fair investigation – careful and timely gathering of information 

from all persons with direct and relevant knowledge 

• Always act in good faith 

• Document, document, document! 


Investigations 

• What not to do: Some Cases 

Disotell v. Kraft Canada Inc. -2010 

• Mr. Disotell was the subject of derogatory sexual 

comments and innuendo alleging he was homosexual 

• Kraft had a harassment policy prohibiting such 

behaviour 

• Mr. Disotell made numerous complaints to supervisor 

who refused to support a formal complaint and indicated 

that a complaint could result in termination 

• Mr. Disotell went on sick leave, retained a lawyer 



Disotell v. Kraft Canada Inc. - 2010 

• Ontario Superior Court of Justice 

• Constructive Dismissal - 12 months’ salary (~$44,000) 

• Kraft failed to administer harassment policy requiring 

supervisors to report incidents of harassment to HR 

• No serious investigation into alleged harassment 

• Kraft failed to interview relevant parties (those named by 

Mr. Disotell 

• Kraft refused Mr. Disotell’s offer to provide particulars 


2011 

• Home Hardware terminated Mr. Elgert after allegations of 

sexual harassment by fellow employee 

• Alleged incident reported by other employee (not victim) 

� Investigation: 

� Investigator was a friend of alleged victim’s father 

� Statement not taken from the alleged victim 

� Witness not interviewed 

� Mr. Elgert not given particulars of the allegations 

against him 


2011 

• Court of Appeal of Alberta 

• Wrongful dismissal – 2 years’ pay in lieu of notice 

• Punitive damages (rare) - $75,000 

• alleged victim didn’t make a formal complaint 

• investigator was untrained and inexperienced with allegations of 

sexual harassment and workplace investigations 

• investigator lacked neutrality because friend of the alleged victim’s 

father and decided Mr. Elgert was guilty prior to meeting with him 

• Mr. Elgert not provided with particulars until 10 days after termination 





• Ms. Vernon had a no-nonsense management style – never a complaint 

against her and “glowing” performance reviews 

• Complaint made that Ms. Vernon’s “unprofessional behaviour” made an 

employee feel harassed/embarrassed 

� Investigation 

• Interviewed complainant and 7 other employees 

• Ms. Vernon not given opportunity to respond to allegations 

• LDB offered Ms. Vernon a reference letter in exchange for voluntary 

resignation – refused 

• Ms. Vernon put on unpaid leave for a month and ultimately terminated 



• Supreme Court of British Columbia 

• Wrongful dismissal – 18 month’s notice (~$97,000) 

• Aggravated damages - $35,000 

• Ms. Vernon given no opportunity to respond to allegations 

• Interview of Ms. Vernon “egregious, shocking and unnecessary” - failed 

to consider Ms. Vernon’s clean disciplinary record and positive 

performance reviews 

• Witnesses were yelled at and accused of lying if their answers to 

questions supported Ms. Vernon 

• Punitive damages - $50,000 

• Offer of reference letter for resignation was “reprehensible” 



Notre ami, Anton Piller (l’ordonnance 

d’injonction) 

Pablo Guzman 

Conférence sur le droit de l’emploi et du travail 

Le 24 mai 2012 

Injonction Anton Piller, ce qu’il faut savoir… 

• Qu’est-ce qu’une ordonnance d’injonction Anton Piller? 

• Conditions 

• La reconnaissance de cette ordonnance au Québec 

• Son application en matière de droit du travail 

• La protection à l’égard du défendeur 

• Injonction Anton Piller : comment se prévaloir? 

• Avantages et inconvénients 

Qu’est-ce qu’une ordonnance d’injonction Anton 

Piller? 

Son origine 

• Existe en droit depuis plus 

de 30 ans. 

• Cette ordonnance a connu 

ses origines, en matière de 

droit de propriété 

intellectuelle, dans la 

décision Anton Piller KG c. 

Manufacturing Processes Ltd 

rendue en 1976, par la Cour 

d’appel, en Angleterre. 




Piller? 

Objectif 

• Son objectif primordial est de 

conserver la preuve. 

• Mesure « de se laisser 

perquisitionner et de se 

laisser saisir ». 

• Anton Piller ≠ mandat de 

perquisition ou de saisie 

criminelle. 


Piller? 

� Il s’agit d’un recours extraordinaire obtenu ex parte qui vise à empêcher 

une personne de faire disparaitre ou de détruire des éléments de preuve 

qui nous seraient utiles dans le contexte d’un litige et qui seraient perdus 

ou détruits si un avis était donné au défendeur. 

• Le défendeur aurait la possibilité de refuser l’exécution d’une telle 

ordonnance, mais cela pourrait résulter dans une condamnation pour 

outrage au tribunal. 

• De plus, un tel refus pourrait compromettre éventuellement la défense du 

défendeur (présomption de la preuve des faits reprochés dans la 

demande). 

• Il s’agit d’une mesure hybride comportant à la fois des éléments qui sont 

propres à l’injonction et à la saisie avant jugement. 

• Domaines d’application (concurrence déloyale, piraterie, violation de 

propriété intellectuelle, etc.). 


Piller? 

« Rolling » Anton Piller et John Doe/Jane Doe 

• Endroits inconnus 

• Personnes inconnues 



Conditions 

A. Conditions relatives à l’injonction provisoire. 

B. Conditions jurisprudentielles relatives à l’ordonnance 

Anton Piller. 

Conditions 

A. Conditions relatives à l’injonction provisoire 

• Un droit apparent clair. 

• Un préjudice irréparable. 

• Balance des inconvénients. 

• Urgence. 

Conditions 

B. Conditions jurisprudentielles relatives à l’ordonnance Anton Piller 

• Un commencement de preuve très solide. 

• Un préjudice réel ou possible très grave pour le demandeur. 

• Une preuve manifeste que le défendeur a en sa possession des 

documents ou des biens pouvant servir de preuve et qu’il est 

réellement probable que le défendeur détruise cette preuve avant 

que ne puisse être introduite une demande. 

• Une pleine et entière divulgation des faits pertinents. 



La reconnaissance de ce recours extraordinaire au 

Québec 

• Le premier débat approfondi devant la Cour d’appel du 

Québec concernant la validité et la reconnaissance au 

Québec de ce recours est survenu en 2002 (Raymond 

Chabot SST inc. c. Groupe AST (1993) inc. [2002]). 

• Absence de cadre législatif. 

• Recours compatible avec les dispositions contenues 

dans le Code civil du Québec, le Code de procédure 

civile et la Charte des droits et libertés. 

Son application en matière de droit du travail 

• Utilité particulière des 

injonctions Anton Piller en 

droit du travail : 

• Veiller au respect des 

obligations légales de loyauté 

et confidentialité (Palmer inc. 

c. Dupuis). 

• Veiller au respect des clauses 

de non-concurrence et de 

non-sollicitation (Shermag inc. 

c. Zelnicker et Raymond 

Chabot SST Inc. c. Grroupe 

AST Inc). 

La protection à l’égard du défendeur 

• La Cour suprême du Canada, dans l’affaire Celanese Canada inc. 

c. Murray Demolition Corp. [2006], expose que le défendeur visé 

par une demande Anton Piller doit bénéficier d’une triple 

protection : 

• Une ordonnance soigneusement rédigée décrivant les 

documents à saisir et énonçant les garanties applicables 

notamment au traitement de documents privilégiés. 

• Un avocat superviseur vigilant et indépendant des parties, 

nommé par le tribunal. 

• Un sens de la mesure de la part des personnes qui exécutent 

l’ordonnance. 



Injonction Anton Piller : comment se prévaloir? 

• Présentation par requête ex parte devant un juge en son bureau. 

• Il n’est pas nécessaire de signifier au défendeur la requête 

demandant l’ordonnance. 

• Requête et pièces appuyées par affidavits. 

• Lors de la demande, la preuve sera tenue pour avérée. 

• Déterminer les personnes autorisées à exécuter l’ordonnance 

(représentants du demandeur, huissiers, experts, policiers, 

avocats, etc., voir Refplus inc. c. Kehar). 

Avantages et inconvénients 

Avantages 

• Encourage la résolution des 

litiges à l’amiable. 

• Permettre l’obtention des 

éléments de preuve pour 

préparer un dossier dans le 

cadre d’un éventuel litige. 

Avantages et inconvénients 

Inconvénients 

• Critères d’admissibilité très 

rigoureux. 

• Implication des coûts 

considérables. 

• Le demandeur peut être 

condamné à payer des 

dommages-intérêts en cas 

d’abus ou de dérogation de 

l’ordonnance. 



Questions? 


Merci! 


Our friend, Anton Piller (the injunction) 

Pablo Guzman 

Employment and Labour Law Conference 

May 24, 2012 

The Anton Piller injunction, what you need to 

know… 

• What is an Anton Piller injunction order? 

• Conditions 

• The recognition of this order in Quebec 

• Its application to labour law 

• Protection for the defendant 

• Anton Piller injunction: how to use it? 

• Advantages and disadvantages 

What is an Anton Piller injunction? 

It’s origin 

• Has existed in law for over 

30 years. 

• This order originated in 

the field of intellectual 

property in the Anton 

Piller KG v. Manufacturing 

Processes Ltd decision 

rendered in 1976 by the 

Court of Appeal in 

England. 



What is an Anton Piller injunction? 

Objective 

• Its primary objective is to 

preserve evidence. 

• Measure to “allow search and 

seizure”. 

• Anton Piller ≠ search warrant 

or criminal seizure. 

What is an Anton Piller injunction order? 

• This is an extraordinary remedy obtained ex parte which aims to prevent a 

person from hiding or destroying evidence that would be useful in the 

context of litigation and that would be lost or destroyed if notice was given 

to the defendant. 

• While the defendant has the possibility of refusing the execution of such 

order, such refusal could result in a conviction for contempt of court. 

• Moreover, such refusal could eventually jeopardize the defendant’s 

defence (presumption of evidence of the facts alleged in the claim). 

• This is a hybrid measure with elements that are unique to both an 

injunction and a seizure before judgement. 

• Areas of application (unfair competition, piracy, intellectual property 

infringement, etc.). 

What is an Anton Piller injunction order? 

“Rolling” Anton Piller and John Doe/Jane Doe 

• Unknown locations 

• Unknown individuals 



Conditions 

A. Conditions relating to the provisional injunction. 

B. Conditions derived from case law relating to the Anton 

Piller order. 

Conditions 

A. Conditions relating to the provisional injunction 

• An apparent clear right. 

• Irreparable harm. 

• Balance of inconvenience. 

• Urgency. 

Conditions 

B. Conditions derived from case law relating to the Anton Piller order 

• A very solid commencement of proof 

• A real or possible very serious prejudice for the plaintiff 

• Manifest evidence that the defendant is in possession of 

documents or goods that could be used as evidence and that there 

is a real possibility that the defendant will destroy this evidence 

before the action may be brought 

• A full disclosure of relevant facts 



The recognition of this extraordinary remedy in Quebec 

• The first debate before the Court of Appeal of Quebec 

regarding the validity and the recognition of this remedy 

in Quebec occurred in 2002 (Raymond Chabot SST inc. 

c. Groupe AST (1993) inc. [2002]). 

• Absence of a legislative framework. 

• Recourse compatible with provisions contained in the 

Civil Code of Quebec, the Code of Civil Procedure and 

the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

Its application to labour law 

• Particular value of Anton Piller 

injunctions in labour law: 

• Enforce legal obligations of 

loyalty and confidentiality 

(Palmer inc. c. Dupuis). 

• Enforce non-competition 

clauses and non-solicitation 

clauses (Shermag inc. c. 

Zelnicker and Raymond 

Chabot SST inc. c. Groupe 

AST inc). 

The protection for the defendant 

• The Supreme Court of Canada in Celanese Canada inc. v. Murray 

Demolition Corp. [2006], held that the defendant targeted by an 

Anton Piller application must benefit from a triple protection: 

• A carefully drafted order which identifies the documents to be 

seized and sets out safeguards to deal, amongst other things, 

with privileged documents. 

• A vigilant court-appointed supervising lawyer who is independent 

of the parties. 

• A sense of responsible self-restraint on the part of those 

executing the order. 



Anton Piller injunction: how to take advantage 

of it? 

• Presentation by ex parte application before a judge a judge in 

chambers. 

• It is not necessary to serve the defendant the motion demanding 

the order. 

• Motion and documents supported by affidavits. 

• During the application, the evidence will be accepted as true. 

• Identify the persons authorized to execute the order (plaintiff’s 

representatives, bailiffs, experts, police, lawyers, etc., see Refplus 

inc. c. Kehar). 

Advantages and disadvantages 

Advantages 

• Encourages out of court 

settlement of litigations. 

• Allows one to obtain evidence 

to prepare a file in the context 

of an eventual litigation. 

Advantages and disadvantages 

Disadvantages 

• Very strict eligibility criteria. 

• Considerable costs involved. 

• The plaintiff may be ordered 

to pay damages in cases of 

abuse or of non-compliance 

with the order. 



Questions? 

Thank You! 



Une Dose de Prévention: 

Bien Gérer La Relation De 

Travail Dès Le Début 

Le Processus De Sélection 

Annonces Et Demandes D’Emploi 

• Format pratique 

• Respecter les lois de protection des droits de la 

personne 

• ATTENTION: 

• NAS 

• Permis de conduire 



Les Médias Sociaux Et Le Processus D’Entrevue 

• Que faire avec les médias sociaux? 

• Atteinte à la vie privée 

• Motifs de discrimination illicites 

• Comment mener une entrevue? 

• Mener les entrevues à deux 

• Respecter les lois de protection 

des droits de la personne 

Offres D’Emploi Conditionnelles 

• De Quoi S’agit-il? 

• Où les utiliser? 

• Accès aux renseignements financers 

• Accès aux membres vulnérables de la société 

• Quelles sont les conditions typiques? 

• Vérification satisfaisante des antécédents 

• Permis de conduire 

• Dossier de conduite (EPJ) 

VOUS AVEZ CHOISI LE CANDIDAT... ET MAINTENANT? 

CONTRATS D’EMPLOI EFFICACES ET EXÉCUTOIRES 



Assurez-vous Que Le Contrat D’emploi 

Est Exécutoire 

• Mettez-le par écrit 

• Signez le contrat d’emploi AVANT le premier 

jour de travail 

• Pourquoi? 

• « Contrepartie » 

• Durée déterminée ou indéterminée 

• Quand utiliser l’un ou l’autre? 

Ajoutez Une Clause De Période Probatoire 

• Période probatoire statutaire 

• Allez-y et renvoyez! 

• Toutefois, la common law/le droit civil 

• Accord écrit sur la période probatoire, autrement, 

«préavis raisonnable» 

Limitez Les Droits Et Indemnités En Cas De Fin D’emploi 

• Respectez les lois sur les normes du travail 

• Limitez la durée de préavis ou d’indemnité tenant lieu 

de préavis? 

• Indiquez clairement la date de fin du droit aux 

avantages sociaux 

• Obligation statutaire vs. obligation en vertu du droit civil 

ou de la common law 



Clauses Restrictives 

• Comprennent généralement: 

• Clause de non-sollicitation 

• Clause de non-concurrence 

• Clause de non-divulgation 

Clauses Restrictives 

• Quand seront-elles exécutoires? 

• Intérêt propriétal légitime (liste de clients, contacts) 

• Les restrictions doivent être raisonnables en termes de durée, 

d’étendue géographique, et de la nature des activités prohibées 

• Les restrictions doivent être claires 

• Raisonnabilité en vertu de l’intérêt/ordre public 

• Lorsqu’il y a à la fois une clause de non-sollicitation et de nonconcurrence 

• En général, la clause de non-sollicitation sera appliquée seulment 

si elle est suffisante 

Cette Clause Est-elle Exécutoire? 

• Jenny travaillait dans une entreprise de recherche à 

Thunder Bay en tant qu’ingénieure biomédicale. Il n’y a 

que 17 postes d’ingénieurs biomédicals au Canada. 

Elle est assujettie à une clause de non-concurrence qui 

l’empèche d’exercer toute fonction d’ingénieur 

biomédical durant 12 mois partout en Amérique du 

Nord. Jenny n’est pas soumise à une clause de nonsollicitation. 

• Exécutoire? 




• Paul travaillait pour ABC Inc., une compagnie de 

fabrication de brosses à dents à Thunder Bay, où Paul 

était un expert en marketing de brosses à dents. Il est 

assujetti à une clause de non-sollicitation qui l’empêche 

de vendre à tout client de ABC à Thunder Bay ou dans 

les environs. 



• Jeff développe une application BlackBerry intitulée « La vie dans 

une ville du nord » qui permet aux utilisateurs de trouver des 

restaurants, bars, et autres activités à Thunder Bay. Il vend son 

application à un réalisateur de logiciels qui l’embauche pour 

développer des applications similaires pour d’autres villes 

canadiennes du nord. Il est assujetti à une clause de nonconcurrence 

qui l’empêche de développer toute application de type 

« mode de vie » qui feraient compétition à celles créées par le 

réalisateur de logiciels, et ce pendant 12 mois après la fin de son 

emploi, partout en Amérique du Nord. 


Ce Qu’il Faut Retenir: 

• Avoir un processus d’affichage d’emplois et de demande d’emploi qui 

est pratique pour votre type d’entreprise 

• Respecter les lois sur les droits de la personne tout au long du 

processus d’embauche: préparation des annonces d’emploi, 

formulaires de demande d’emploi, entrevues 

• Utiliser des offres d’emploi conditionnelles là où c’est opportun 

• Solidifiez les modalités d’emploi dans un contrat d’emploi écrit. 



MERCI!! 



AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION: 

EFFECTIVELY MANAGING THE EMPLOYMENT 

RELATIONSHIP FROM THE BEGINNING 

THE SELECTION PROCESS 

Advertisements and Applications for Employment 

• Workable form 

• Comply with applicable human rights legislation 

• CAUTION: 

• SIN 

• Driver’s License 



Social Media and the Interview Process 

• What to do with Social Media? 

• Privacy concerns 

• Protected grounds of 

discrimination 

• How to conduct an Interview? 

• Conduct interviews in pairs 

• Comply with human rights 

legislation 

Conditional Offers of Employment 

• What is it? 

• Where to use it? 

• Access to financial information 

• Access to the vulnerable members of society 

• What are typical conditions? 

• Satisfactory background check 

• Driver’s license 

• Driver’s abstract (BFOR) 

YOU’VE SELECTED THE CANDIDATE….NOW WHAT? 

EFFECTIVE & ENFORCEABLE EMPLOYMENT 

CONTRACTS 



Ensure the Employment Contract is Enforceable 

• Put it in Writing 

• Sign the Contract BEFORE 

the Employee begins working 

• Why? 

• “Consideration” 

• Fixed Term v. Indefinite Term 

• When to use which 

Include a Probationary Period Provision 

• Statutory Probationary Period 

• Fire Away! 

• However, the Common Law 

• Written agreement to probationary period otherwise 

“reasonable notice” 

Limit Entitlements Upon Termination of Employment 

• Comply with employment standards legislation 

• Cap the amount of notice of termination or pay in lieu 

thereof 

• Clearly set out when an employee’s entitlements to 

benefits will end 

• Statutory obligation vs common law obligation 



Restrictive Covenants 

• Typically Include: 

• Non-Solicit 

• Non-Compete 

• Non-Disclosure 

Restrictive Covenants 

• When will they be enforceable? 

• Legitimate Proprietary Interest (client lists, client contacts) 

• Restriction must be reasonable in terms of time, 

geographic location and nature of activities prohibited 

• Restriction must be clear 

• Reasonable with reference to public interest 

• Where there is both a Non-Solicit and Non-Compete 

• Generally will enforce the non-solicit only if sufficient 

Is it enforceable? 

• Jenny worked at a research company in Thunder Bay 

as a biomedical engineer. There are only 17 biomedical 

engineer positions in Canada. She is subject to a noncompete 

that requires her not to exercise any functions 

as a biomedical engineer for 12 months anywhere in 

North America. Jenny is not subject to a non-solicit. 

• Enforceable? 




• Paul worked for ABC Inc., a company that 

manufactures toothbrushes in Thunder Bay where Paul 

was an expert on how to market toothbrushes. He is 

subject to a non-solicit that limits Paul from selling to 

any customers of ABC in Thunder Bay or the 

surrounding area. 



• Jeff develops a Blackberry Application called “Life in a Northern 

Town” which allows users to locate restaurants, bars and activities 

in Thunder Bay. He sells the Application to a software developer 

who hires him to develop similar applications for other Northern 

Canadian Towns. He is subject to a non-compete that requires him 

not to develop any “lifestyle” applications competitive with those 

made by the software developer for 12 months after his 

employment ends anywhere in North America. 


The Take Aways! 

• Have a job posting and application that is functional for 

your particular business 

• Comply with applicable human rights legislation when 

preparing job postings, application forms and when 

interviewing candidates 

• Make use of conditional offers of employment where 

appropriate 

• Solidify the terms and conditions of an employee’s 

employment in a written employment contract 



THANK YOU!! 





AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION 

EFFECTIVELY MANAGING THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP 

FROM THE BEGINNING 

Michael S. Richards and Leslie A. Frattolin 1 

MAY 2012 

1 The authors wish to thank Erin Caplan, articling student, without whom this paper would not have been 

written!



It has happened to every HR professional and almost every manger. The candidate that you thought was 

so perfect for the position turns out to be a dud. The stellar resume and the list of awards and 

achievements that looked so promising just a few months ago have been eclipsed by an individual who 

seems to take every opportunity to avoid doing his/her work or displays a personality that is simply at odds 

with your organization. As you put together the termination documents, you ask yourself how could I have 

avoided this? 

Another common problem faced by employers is the departing star performer. Are you confident that, if 

one of your star performers was to leave today, you have the proper protections in place to prevent 

him/her walking out with key members of his/her team or walking away with your biggest accounts? 

There are several risks that a savvy employer can address even before an employee has started working. 

Employers can eliminate many of the issues and problems that arise during the course of an employment 

relationship by being mindful of their obligations and duties during the hiring stage and by drafting 

enforceable employment contracts that clearly set out the employee’s entitlements and terms and 

conditions of employment. 

The purpose of this paper is to provide a guide to hiring that will ensure that you remain on the right side of 

applicable laws while being diligent about the candidates you are considering and the protections you are 

implementing. 

A. The Selection Process 

1. Advertisements and Applications for Employment 

Employers must be careful to draft job advertisements and application forms that are appropriate for their 

particular operation and business. The first consideration is whether to use an application form or to 

simply collect a resume. 

An application form has the advantage of ensuring that an employer gets all of the specific information 

that it wants and needs. In addition, an employer can still request that a potential employee attach a 

resume to the application form, allowing him/her to demonstrate any experience, aptitudes or interest not 

covered by your form. Another alternative is to use application forms as an initial screening process 

allowing the employer to avoid having to wade through a large number of resumes to weed out unsuitable 

candidates. Where an employer decides to use an application form, they should make sure that it is 

tailored to meet the particular needs of the employer’s business. 

In addition, employers must also be mindful of applicable human rights legislation. Every employer is 

subject to human rights legislation which regulates what employers can and cannot communicate to 

potential employees in their job advertisements or recruitment literature. One of the pitfalls of simply 

accepting a resume is that an employer may be provided with information regarding an individual that the 

employer does not want to receive such as where they are from, what religious group they belong to or 

what their political or social interests are. 

Human rights legislation prohibits employers from making decisions based on the applicant’s 

characteristics or circumstances that are protected grounds and unrelated to job requirements, 

qualifications or performance. As a result, it is inappropriate for employers to include any questions on job 

postings or application forms that either directly or indirectly: 

(i) Seek information from an applicant based on a prohibited ground of 

discrimination; 

(ii) Classify an applicant based on a prohibited ground of discrimination; or



(iii) Prevent or discourage an applicant from applying for a job on the basis of a 

prohibited ground of discrimination. 

Employers should only require qualifications and ask questions in job advertisements and application 

forms that directly relate to the requirements and/or qualifications necessary for the performance of the 

job. 

The prohibited grounds of discrimination vary from province to province. Generally, prohibited grounds of 

discrimination include: race, ancestry, colour, ethnicity, citizenship, religion, sex, sexual orientation, record 

of offences, age, marital status, family status and disability. Attached as Schedule “A” is a listing of all the 

prohibited grounds in Ontario and Quebec. 

Job postings and application forms should be scrutinized to ensure that they do not solicit information, 

either directly or indirectly, that forces the applicant to disclose information related to prohibited grounds of 

discrimination, unless necessary. For example, an employer should refrain from requesting a candidate’s 

social insurance number (SIN) on the application form. A SIN can contain information about an applicant’s 

place of origin or citizenship. As a result, requesting a SIN relates indirectly to prohibited grounds of 

discrimination under human rights legislation. 

Employers should also be mindful when requesting a copy of an applicant’s driver’s license. Unless driving 

a vehicle is required for the particular job and therefore considered to be a bona fide occupational 

requirement, it would be improper to request a copy of an applicant’s driver’s licence on an application 

form as that would force the applicant to divulge information as to his/her age and any disability he/she 

may have. 

Attached as Schedule “B” is a chart that sets out examples and categories of questions that an employer 

can and cannot request from candidates in job postings and on application forms. 

2. Facebook/Social Media 

In recent years, questions have arisen as to whether or not, as part of the recruitment process, an 

employer should review an applicant’s Facebook page or require that the applicant give the employer 

access to such a page. The law with respect to this issue is just developing, and employers must exercise 

extreme caution before proceeding down this road. 

In some provinces, requiring an applicant to provide access to his/her Facebook page has been found to 

be a breach of privacy legislation. Furthermore, accessing an applicant’s Facebook page may 

inadvertently provide an employer with information related to a prohibited ground as set out above. For this 

reason, we recommend that employers do not try to access an applicant’s Facebook page as part of the 

application process. Instead, a rigorous process of applications, interviews and background checks is a 

much more reliable and safe approach. 

3. The Interview Process 

The protections afforded by applicable human rights legislation also encompasses the interview stage of 

the hiring process. Employers must exercise caution with respect to posing questions to employees during 

employment interviews. 

Employers should train their interviewers with respect to what questions are acceptable and what 

questions are prohibited under applicable human rights legislation. Interviewers should only ask questions 

that can help the employer make an informed decision about whether the candidate is the most qualified 

individual for the job and whether accommodation will be required.



A helpful recommendation is to draft a standard set of questions that will be posed to every candidate. 

Provided the interviewers stick to these questions, doing so will help an employer defend itself against any 

future claim that a candidate was discriminated against on a prohibited ground during the interview 

process. 

Lastly, employers should conduct interviews in pairs or teams. Employers should not have their managers 

or human resource professionals interview candidates alone. Allowing more than one person to participate 

in the interview process provides the employer with the benefit of multiple perspectives and, as a result, 

can help to avoid biases. Moreover, in the event that a discrimination complaint is made, more than one 

witness will be able to testify to the lack of discriminatory conduct. 

Attached as Schedule “C” is a chart setting out examples of permissible and prohibited questions and 

information that an employer can request from candidates at the interview stage of the employment 

process. 

(a) Exceptions 

Human rights legislation sets out specific exceptions to the rule prohibiting discrimination in employment. 

Such exceptions are typically based on equitable considerations, such as serving the needs of particular 

communities or other special circumstances. 2 

In Ontario, the Human Rights Code sets out the following exceptions that enable employers to pose 

questions pertaining to prohibited grounds of discrimination at the hiring stage: 

• Employers who implement special programs designed to relieve hardship or economic 

disadvantage, or to assist disadvantaged groups to achieve equal opportunity, may ask questions 

on job applications and during the interview process that pertain to a candidate’s membership in a 

group experiencing hardship or disadvantage. 3 

• In other employment circumstances, it is permissible for employers to confirm an applicant’s 

status as a Canadian citizen or lawful permanent resident if: 

(i) it is a requirement, qualification or consideration imposed or authorized by law; or 

(ii) it is a requirement, qualification or consideration adopted for the purpose of 

fostering and developing participation in cultural, educational, trade union or 

athletic activities by Canadian citizens or those admitted to Canada for permanent 

residence; or 

(iii) an employer requires that its chief or senior executives be, or become, Canadian 

citizens. 4 

• Religious, philanthropic, educational or social institutions, or other types of organizations that are 

primarily engaged in serving the interests of groups that identify by race, ancestry, place of origin, 

colour, ethnic origin, creed, sex, age, marital status or disability, are allowed to give preference in 

2 For example see s.18.1 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12 and section 23 

and 24 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c H.19. 

3 Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c H.19., s. 14. 

4 Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, s. 16.



employment to candidates who similarly identify if giving such preference is reasonable and 

genuine due to the nature of the employment. 5 

• Employers are allowed to grant or refuse employment to an applicant who is a spouse, child or 

parent of either the employer or an employee. As a result, questions as to whether an applicant is 

a spouse, child or parent of a current employee or the employer would be permissible during the 

application process. 6 

Notwithstanding the above, we recommend that employers proceed with caution before relying on such an 

exception - employers should carefully review the applicable human rights legislation. 

4. Conditions on Offers of Employment 

Once the application and hiring process is complete, you are ready for the successful candidate to begin 

work. However, in instances where there are bona fide occupational requirements, where the nature of the 

position involves the interaction with vulnerable members of the public, or where the candidate will have 

significant access to financial information, a conditional offer of employment may be of use. 

A conditional offer of employment enables an employer to extend an offer of employment to a successful 

candidate on the condition that the candidate successfully complete an undertaking such as a background 

check or the provision of a valid driver’s license. A conditional offer of employment can minimize the risk 

of hiring unqualified, dishonest or even potentially dangerous individuals. 

The key to successfully making a conditional offer is to not let the employee start work until the conditions 

have been satisfied. If an employer allows an individual to start work without completing the condition(s), 

the employer will have employed the individual and lost the benefit of a conditional offer. 

(a) Background checks 

Background checks, such as the verification of resume details and personal references, credit checks, 

motor vehicle history/driver abstracts, and criminal background checks, can be extremely useful to 

employers in verifying a candidates’ history and credentials, as well as assessing his/her suitability for 

employment. Background checks are particularly useful to employers whose employees are privy to 

sensitive financial information or work closely with vulnerable members of society (such as children or the 

elderly). 

However, background checks can raise potential compliance concerns with applicable human rights 

legislation. Similar to requests for a SIN or a driver’s licence, background checks can provide information 

that relates to a prohibited ground of discrimination. 

For example, a background check relating to academic credentials, such as post-secondary institutions 

attended, or the year of graduation, can reveal a candidate’s age and/or national origin. Information 

obtained through personal references can expose a candidate’s religion or disability. Information obtained 

through a credit check may provide information as to a candidate’s source of income or social condition, 

which are prohibited grounds of discrimination in some provinces. Furthermore, criminal record checks 

disclosing convictions for impaired driving or drug-related charges may indicate the existence of a 

disability. 

5 Ibid., s. 24(1)(a). 

6 Ibid., 24(1)(d).



An employer who is privy to this type of information increases the likelihood that an applicant will claim that 

the decision not to extend him/her an offer of employment was based on a personal characteristic that is a 

prohibited ground of discrimination. 

In order to minimize this risk, we recommend that employers only conduct background checks on 

candidates where: 

(i) the request for a background check is reasonable with respect to the position in 

question; 

(ii) the employer has obtained the candidate’s express written consent; and 

(iii) a conditional offer of employment has been extended to the candidate that is 

contingent on a satisfactory background check. 

In addition, it is important to note that in some provinces, privacy legislation may impact an employer’s 

ability to perform a background check. In such cases, even obtaining the employee’s consent may not be 

enough to support a background check that is not reasonably related to the individual’s employment. 

(b) Driver’s Licenses 

Where driving is a bona fide occupational requirement of the job, an employer can state, on job postings 

or application forms, that the position requires the successful candidate to have a valid driver’s license and 

that the successful candidate will have to provide proof that he/she has a valid driver’s license upon being 

hired. However, only questions relating to whether or not an applicant is licensed to drive, and/or the type 

of vehicle the applicant is licensed to drive are appropriate on the application form. 

In addition, where driving is a bona fide occupational requirement of the job, an employer may make a 

conditional offer of employment on the basis of a satisfactory driver’s abstract. The employer must make 

sure the requirement is rationally connected to the performance of the job to justify revoking an offer on 

this basis. 

(c) Employment-related Medical Information and Examinations 

Employers may request medical information or some form of physical or psychological testing in order to 

determine a candidate’s suitability for a position. However, requests for medical information or medical 

examinations are only permissible where the information or examination relates to a bona fide 

occupational requirement, and even then, should only take place after a conditional offer of employment is 

made. 

It is recommended that employers wishing to request employment-related medical information and/or 

conduct examinations comply with the following: 

• Candidates should be provided adequate warning of the employer’s intention to request the 

information or conduct the examination. 

• The purpose of a medical test should be to ensure that candidates are able to perform the 

essential duties of the job. As a result, medical tests should elicit only information necessary to 

determine if the candidate is able to perform the essential duties of the job. In the event that nonessential 

information is obtained through the test, such information should be kept confidential. 

• All tests must be considered on an individual basis. 

• Testing must be conducted in a professional manner.



• Candidates should be given the chance to discuss the results of the medical tests with a qualified 

physician. 

• Employers should opt for any available medical testing option that least interferes with a 

candidate’s dignity and privacy. 

Employers should obtain advice as to whether there is applicable provincial or federal privacy legislation 

that places any additional restrictions on an employer’s right to conduct medical examinations. 

(d) Drug and Alcohol Testing 

In Canada, drug and alcohol testing is presumed to be discriminatory and is only justifiable if the need for 

it is demonstrably connected to the performance of the job and for employers that have safety sensitive 

operations. Pre-employment testing is difficult if not impossible to justify. 

B. Crafting Effective and Enforceable Employment Contracts 

Once a candidate has been chosen, it is important to clearly establish the parameters of the employment 

relationship in a written contract of employment. In other words, the entitlements that the employee can 

expect to receive during the course of the employment relationship ought to be clearly set out in writing. 

The following section highlights key contractual provisions that can help an employer effectively manage 

the employment relationship and limit the employer’s exposure to liability. 

1. Put Your Employment Contract in Writing 

A contract of employment can be an oral agreement or a written agreement. However, if a dispute arises 

over the terms of an oral contract, a court will step in to determine the terms that the parties agreed to and 

will typically “read in” a number of implied contractual terms, many of which will not be in the employer’s 

favour. This can be avoided if parties put their agreed upon terms into writing. 

2. Exchange of Consideration 

The employee must sign the employment contract before the employee begins to work for the employer to 

ensure that the following three (3) legal requirements are fulfilled: 

(i) that there is an offer of employment; 

(ii) that there is acceptance of that offer; and 

(iii) that there is an exchange of consideration. 

The legal doctrine of “consideration” requires the parties to exchange something of value. In other words, 

a contract must contain mutual promises, with each party promising to do something in exchange for the 

other party’s promise to do something. Generally, in most employment contracts, the employee’s promise 

to work and provide services to the employer and the employer’s promise of wages and benefits forms the 

consideration. 

If an employee starts working and providing services to the employer before the employment contract has 

been signed, the employee may later say that there was no exchange of “consideration” between the 

employee to the employer at the time the employment contract was signed – the employee had already 

begun working for the employer and the employer had already assumed the obligation to pay the



employee, 7 as soon as this happened, all of the other terms of employment were “implied” by the common 

law. 

As a result, it is of the utmost importance that employees sign their employment contracts before they 

begin working. 

3. Include a Probationary Period 

Incorporating a probationary period into a contract of employment allows an employer the freedom to 

assess the employee’s ability and suitability before committing to the employment relationship on an 

indefinite basis. 

The employment and labour standards legislation in most provinces does not require an employer to give 

notice of termination to an employee during the first few weeks or months of employment. In Ontario and 

Quebec, employers are not required to provide employees with notice of termination where those 

employees have been employed for less than three (3) months. 8 However, under the common law and the 

civil code, an employer who does not obtain an employee’s written agreement to a probationary period 

cannot terminate the employee without “reasonable notice” or just and sufficient cause. 

As a result, employers should take advantage of the statutory probationary period and incorporate specific 

clauses related to the probationary period directly into employment contracts. The probationary period 

must be in compliance with the statutory notice period provided for by provincial employment and labour 

standards legislation – otherwise the court may strike it down as void and against public policy. 

Employers should ensure that the probationary period is clearly agreed to, and that the meaning of the 

provision itself is clear. Where the probationary provision is unclear and an employee claims that he or 

she did not understand the probationary nature of the employment, it is likely that a court will interpret the 

provision to the benefit of the employee. 

Employers should reserve to themselves the sole and absolute discretion to terminate the employee’s 

employment during the probationary period. They should not reference an assessment of the individual’s 

performance or an evaluation. 

Finally, it should be noted that, notwithstanding a wide latitude to terminate an employee’s employment 

without notice during a contractually agreed to probationary period, employers may still not terminate an 

employee contrary to other statutes such as employment standards legislation where an employee has 

requested a leave under that legislation or following a workplace injury. 

4. Termination Provision 

A clear termination provision allows both the employer and employee to know what to expect upon the 

termination of the employment relationship. On the other hand, a misunderstanding as to the rights and 

duties of employers and employees upon termination of the relationship can be costly for both parties. 

7 Francis v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1994), 120 D.L.R. (4 th ) 393 (Ont. CA); Techform 

Products Ltd. v. Wolda (2001), 12 C.C.E.L. (3d) 184 (ONCA); and Kholer Canada Co. v. Porter (2002), 17 

C.C.E.L (3d) 274 (Ont. SJ). 

8 Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000, c 41, s.54; An Act respecting labour standards, RSQ, c N- 

1.1, s.82.1.



In Ontario, provided that the termination provision is compliant with applicable employment standards 

legislation, the termination provision in a contract of employment can limit the amount of the notice of 

termination or pay in lieu thereof that will be provided to an employee upon termination of the employee’s 

employment without just cause. An employer cannot, however, contract out of, or provide less notice of 

termination than the minimum notice of termination provisions set out in the applicable employment and 

labour standards legislation. Attached as Schedule “D” is a chart setting out the minimum statutory notice 

requirements in Ontario and Quebec. 

A well drafted termination provision can also address whether the employee will receive working notice or 

pay in lieu of notice and whether payment in lieu of notice to an employee terminated without cause in the 

form of a lump sum payment or continuation of salary. 

In Quebec, termination provisions included in employment agreements will not eliminate an employer’s 

liability on termination. As a result, it may not be beneficial to include a termination provision in a Quebec 

employment agreement. 

5. Benefits 

The employment contract is an ideal place to set out the employee’s entitlement to benefits, if any, and 

any conditions associated with those benefits. Examples of benefits include, but are not limited to: 

vacation, use of a company car or vehicle allowance, pension, health and dental, life insurance, and 

RRSP contributions. Any benefit provisions in an employment contract must comply with the applicable 

labour and employment standards legislation. 

The employment contract should also clearly set out when the employee’s entitlement to benefits will end. 

Applicable labour and employment standards legislation, in most jurisdictions, requires an employer to 

continue making all contributions to benefits plans during the statutory notice period. This obligation exists 

whether an employee is provided with working notice of termination or pay in lieu thereof. 

At common law, however, an employer may be required to continue making contributions to benefit plans 

during the common law period of reasonable notice. 9 By discontinuing an employee’s benefits coverage 

prior to the end of the common law period of reasonable notice, the employer is exposed to liability for 

damages equal to the benefits the employee would have received had the employer continued benefits 

coverage. 10 

As a result, the employment contract should clearly set out that an employer will continue to make 

contributions to an employee’s benefit plans during the statutory notice period only and that the employer 

will cease to be liable for any and all benefits thereafter. 

It is important to note that the employer is not just liable for the amount of the benefit premiums but for the 

actual amount of the benefits the employee would have received. The biggest areas of concern are 

disability and life insurance. Where an employee dies or becomes disabled during the reasonable notice 

period, Canadian courts have held the employer liable for the value for the life insurance that would have 

been paid to the employee’s estate or for the value of the disability benefits the employee would have 

received had his/her benefits been continued. This can quickly result in a wrongful dismissal case that was 

worth thousands of dollars becoming one that is worth tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

9 For example see Card Estate v. John A. Robertson Mechanical Contractors (1985) Ltd., [1989] O.J. No. 

1129; Stelco Inc., Re, [2005] WL 2669134 [Ont. S.C.J.]; Egan v. Alcatel Canada Inc., [2006] O.J. No. 34. 

10 For example see Card Estate v. John A. Robertson Mechanical Contractors (1985) Ltd., [1989] O.J. No. 

1129; Stelco Inc., Re, [2005] WL 2669134 [Ont. S.C.J.]; Egan v. Alcatel Canada Inc., [2006] O.J. No. 34.

6. Restrictive Covenants 



Restrictive covenants set limits or restrictions on what an employee may or may not do in the event that he 

or she leaves the organization. In particular, employers use restrictive covenants as a mechanism to 

prevent former employees from: 

(i) competing with their business; 

(ii) soliciting their customers or employees; and 

(iii) disclosing specific confidential business information that the departing employee 

obtained while working for the employer. 

In order for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable, the clause must be reasonable. 11 The following is a 

three-part test used by the courts to determine the enforceability of restrictive covenants: 12 

(iv) the employer must have a legitimate proprietary interest which it is entitled to 

protect; 

(v) the restraint must be reasonable between the parties in terms of time, 

geographical area, the nature of the activities prohibited, and overall fairness; and 

(vi) the restraint must be reasonable with reference to the public interest. 

(b) Proprietary Interest 

Examples of legitimate proprietary interests that restrictive covenants can be used to protect include: 

• products, processes and/or services; 

• systems and methods; 

• designs, patents, technical information and/or techniques; 

• strategies, bids, contracts and/or markets; 

• customer or supplier lists and/or price lists; 

• financial and/or marketing information; and 

• information supplied to the employee in confidence by any third party. 

Restrictive covenants, however, cannot be used to prohibit a former employee from using the general 

skills, knowledge or expertise that he/she acquired during the course of employment or information 

generally available in the public domain. 13 

11 Elsley v. JG Collins Insurance Agencies Ltd (1978), 83 D.L.R. (3d) 1 (SCC) 

12 Ibid. 

13 Total Credit Recovery Ltd. v. Koyama-Asada (1998), 34 C.C.E.L. (2d) 125 (Ont. Gen. Div.).



(c) The Scope of the Restrictive Covenant must be Reasonable 

The scope of the restrictive covenant must be as narrow as possible. An employer who attempts to draft a 

covenant which is more restrictive than is reasonably necessary to protect its legitimate interests runs the 

risk of having the covenant found to be unenforceable. For example, if a restrictive covenant attempts to 

restrict a former employee from engaging in ALL types of activity related to the employer’s business, it is 

less likely to be enforced. 

Further, a restriction placed on an employee after the employment relationship has ended should only last 

long enough for the employer to protect its proprietary interest. A court will be inclined to strike down a 

restrictive covenant that extends over a long period of time. The length of time which would be considered 

“reasonable” by a court is often related to the length of time needed for the employer to solidify its position 

after the employee leaves. Generally, a one (1) year restrictive covenant is the “high-water mark”. In 

addition, Ontario courts have said that they will not enforce a non-competition clause against an employee 

where a non-solicitation clause would be sufficient to protect the employer’s interest. 

With respect to the geographical scope of a restrictive covenant, the reasonableness of the geographical 

restriction will depend on the facts of the particular case. However, a restrictive covenant that does not 

specify any geographic area will likely be held to be too broad in scope and therefore, unreasonable. On 

the other hand, if the restraint includes a geographic area beyond what is reasonably required to protect 

the employer’s proprietary interests, it will be held to be unenforceable. 14 For example, a non-competition 

clause that attempts to prevent a former employee from competing with the employer in all geographical 

areas where the employer marketed its products or services would likely be found by a court to be too 

broad in geographical scope if the former employee only worked in only one geographical area. 15 

In addition, it is important that the geographic restriction be specific. Including a reference to a general 

area such as the “greater Vancouver area” may not be specific enough to be enforceable. Where 

geographic areas are included, they should include specific boundaries or municipalities to ensure that 

they are most likely to be enforced. 

(d) Public Interest 

Even if a court finds that a restrictive covenant is reasonable as between the employer and a former 

employee, the court must decide if the restrictive covenant is nonetheless contrary to public interest. 16 

Courts are generally of the view that it is not in the public interest to lock skilled individuals out of the 

market to limit competition. 17 As such, courts will likely look at whom else in the marketplace can offer the 

type of work or service in question, the current needs of the particular community, and the effect enforcing 

that covenant might have on the community. 

As a final point, employers should be aware that non-competition clauses are viewed much more strictly 

by the courts than non-solicitation clauses. It is, therefore, recommended that employers use non- 

14 Medtronic of Canada Ltd. v. Armstrong, [1999] OJ No. 4860 (Ont. SCJ). 

15 Trapeze Software Inc. v. Bryans, [2007] O.J. 276 (S.C.J.) 

16 Supra, note 6 at 9. 

17 Ibid.



solicitation and confidentiality clauses instead of just non-competition clauses whenever possible to 

protect their legitimate interests. 18 

(e) Linked-In 

For those employers who rely on a non-solicitation clause to protect their customer base when an 

employee leaves, a new challenge is being presented by business networking sites such as Linked-In. 

It is not uncommon for savvy employees to use Linked-In to connect to various representatives of an 

employer’s clients. In fact, it may even be a business practice that is encouraged by the employer. There 

is, however, a question as to who owns the Linked-In account and who owns the contacts that the 

employee has made through that website. 

In most cases, a Linked-In account is something that an employee will have established prior to 

commencing employment with the employer and that the employee will continue to use throughout their 

employment. In these types of cases, there is a compelling argument that the Linked-In account belongs 

to the employee and as such an employer may have little ability to require the employee to delete 

connections made to clients of the employer during the employee’s employment. On the other hand, an 

employer who requires an individual to create a Linked-In account for business purposes may be in a 

position to assert ownership over that account at the end of the employee’s employment. 

In addition, employers who adopt clear policies with respect to connections on Linked-In that are made 

during the course of an employee’s employment, and which state that connections are to be deleted or 

removed upon the end of the employee’s employment may have some recourse. There is, however, very 

little that an employer can do to restrict an employee from searching out client contacts on Linked-In 

following the end of his/her employment. 

The flip side of this, however, is that, an employer may be entitled to gain access to a former employee’s 

Linked-In account to demonstrate breach of a non-solicitation covenant through the discovery procedure 

in litigation. 

Conclusion 

This paper has examined a number of issues from the initial application process, to the selection of a 

successful candidate, to finalizing the terms and conditions of an employee’s employment. Prudent 

employers should: 

• have a job posting and application process that is functional and suits their particular 

business; 

• comply with applicable human rights legislation when preparing job postings, application 

forms and when interviewing candidates; 

• make use of conditional offers of employment where appropriate; 

• solidify the terms and conditions of an employee’s employment in a written employment 

contract; 

18 Lyons v. Multari, [2007] OJ No. 3462 (CA).



• include clear provisions relating to a probationary period, entitlements upon the 

termination of employment, the provision and cessation of benefits and post employment 

restrictions. 

Taking these steps will help to effectively manage the employment relationship and limit exposure to 

liability, should that employment relationship end.

Ontario Human Rights Code: 



SCHEDULE “A” 

The following is a list of prohibited grounds of discrimination regarding employment under the Ontario 

Human Rights Code: 

Prohibited Ground Definition 

Race 

Ancestry 

Place of Origin 

Colour 

Ethnic Origin 

Citizenship 

Creed 

Sex 

Sexual Orientation 

Age 

Marital Status 

includes the right to equal treatment without discrimination because a woman 

is or may become pregnant 

the status of being married, single, widowed, divorced or separated and 

includes the status of living with a person in a conjugal relationship outside 

marriage 

Family Status the status of being in a parent and child relationship

Prohibited Ground Definition 

Disability “disability” means: 

Record of Offences 



(a) any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that 

is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness and, without limiting the 

generality of the foregoing, includes diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, a brain injury, any 

degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical co-ordination, blindness or visual 

impediment, deafness or hearing impediment, muteness or speech impediment, or 

physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other 

remedial appliance or device, 

(b) a condition of mental impairment or a developmental disability, 

(c) a learning disability, or a dysfunction in one or more of the processes involved 

in understanding or using symbols or spoken language, 

(d) a mental disorder, or 

(e) an injury or disability for which benefits were claimed or received under the 

insurance plan established under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 

“record of offences” means a conviction for, 

Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms 

(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal 

Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or 

(b) an offence in respect of any provincial enactment; 

The following is a list of the prohibited grounds of discrimination regarding employment in Quebec Charter 

of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Race 

Colour 

Sex 

Pregnancy 

Sexual orientation 

Civil status 

Age, except as provided by law 

Religion 

Political convictions 

Language 

Ethnic or national origin 

Social condition 

Handicap, or the use of any means to palliate a handicap 



Conviction of a penal or criminal offence, if the offence was in no way connected with the employment 

or if the person has obtained a pardon for the offence (s 18.2)



SCHEDULE “B” 

Trait Permissible Questions Prohibited Questions 

Race/colour None Any questions about/relating to physical traits such as colour of 

eyes, hair, skin, height, body weight, or requests for 

photographs. 

Questions about a candidate’s native language, where the 

candidate obtained his/her language skills, and whether the 

candidate speaks English or French fluently (unless fluency in 

English or French is a reasonable and genuine requirement for 

the position) 

Creed/Religion None Questions concerning a candidate’s religious 

affiliation/membership, the religious institutions he/she attends, 

the frequency of the candidate’s attendance, religious holidays 

or customs observed, willingness or ability to work on a week 

day that may conflict with the requirements of a particular faith 

(e.g. Saturday, Sunday or Sabbath days). 

Citizenship/ 

Place of origin/ 

Ethnic origin 

Are you legally entitled to work 

in Canada? 

Requests for character references that would indicate religious 

affiliation. 

Questions about or relating to a candidate’s birthplace, the 

nationality of a candidate’s ancestors, spouse or other relatives, 

whether a candidate is a Canadian citizen, whether a candidate 

has landed immigrant status, permanent residency or 

naturalization. 

Requests for proof of a candidate’s Canadian citizenship or 

Social Insurance Number (A SIN may be requested following a 

conditional offer of employment - see “Conditional offers of 

Employment” below). 

Questions about or relating to a candidate’s “Canadian” work 

experience regarding a particular job. 

Questions concerning a candidate’s membership in 

organizations which are identified by a prohibited ground of 

discrimination (i.e. membership in a Middle-Eastern-Canadian 

organization). 

Questions about the name and location of schools that the 

candidate has attended. (It is generally not advisable to ask for 

the name of an applicant’s high school.) 

Sex None Inquiries into a candidate’s surname or last name before 

marriage (maiden name or birth name); application forms that 

have check boxes for Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., etc. 

Sexual 

orientation 

Questions regarding the nature of the relationship with the 

person a candidate names to be notified in case of emergency 

or as an insurance beneficiary. 

None Any question regarding the applicant’s sexual orientation. 

Categories on application forms or inquiries such as married, 

divorced, common-law relationship, single or separated; etc. 

Relationship with the person to be notified in case of emergency 

or with insurance beneficiary.



Trait Permissible Questions Prohibited Questions 

Marital 

status/Family 

status 

Record of 

Offences 

None Check-off boxes on application forms requesting an applicant 

indicate wither they are married, divorced, in a common-law 

relationship, single or separated, etc. 

Employers can ask whether a 

candidate has been convicted 

of a criminal offence for which a 

pardon has not been granted. 

If being bondable is a 

reasonable and genuine 

requirement of the job, an 

employer can inquire if the 

candidate is eligible to be 

bonded. 

Age Are you 18 years of age or 

older? 

Check-off boxes requesting a candidate to identify as Mr., Mrs., 

Miss, Ms., etc. 

Inquiries into a candidate’s surname or last name before 

marriage (maiden or birth name). 

Questions regarding a candidate’s spouse and their 

employment (e.g., is spouse willing to transfer?). 

Questions pertaining to a candidate’s children or dependants; 

child care arrangements; information about spouse and their 

employment. 

Questions pertaining to the nature of the candidate’s 

relationship with person the candidate lists to be notified in case 

of emergency or as insurance beneficiary. 

Questions about or relating to whether a candidate has ever 

been arrested or convicted of any offence (this question does 

not comply with human rights legislation as it solicits information 

regarding pardoned offences). 

Whether a candidate has ever spent time in jail or has ever 

been convicted under a provincial statute (e.g., Highway Traffic 

Act), and whether a candidate has a criminal record, or has 

been convicted of an offence for which a pardon has been 

granted. 

Questions pertaining to age / date of birth. 

Requests for an applicant’s birth certificate, baptismal records 

or any other document such as a driver’s license which 

indicates age. 

Disability None Questions pertaining to an applicant’s health, disabilities, 

illnesses, mental disorders, physical or intellectual challenges, 

developmental disabilities, intellectual impairment or learning 

disability. 

Questions pertaining to whether an applicant drinks or uses 

drugs, whether an applicant has ever received psychiatric care, 

or have ever been hospitalized for emotional problems. 

Inquiries into an applicant’s medical history, injuries or 

Workplace Safety and Insurance claims, medication, or 

membership in a medical or patient association (i.e. Alcoholics 

Anonymous). 

Require applicants to undergo pre-employment medical 

examinations where not a bona fide occupational requirement. 

Requiring applicants to indicate whether they are eligible for or 

possess a valid driver’s license where not a bona fide 

occupational requirement.



SCHEDULE “C” 

Trait Permissible Question Prohibited Question 

Race/ colour/ 

ancestry/ 

place of 

origin/ 

ethnic origin 

Questions by a service organization that 

works with a particular community if 

membership in that community is 

justifiable as a requirement for the job. 

Creed Questions by a denominational school as 

to religious membership, if the job 

involves communicating religious values 

to students. 

Citizenship Questions pertaining to an applicant’s 

citizenship, if required by law for a 

particular job. 

Questions pertaining to Canadian 

citizenship or permanent residency if 

such requirement has been adopted to 

foster and develop participation in 

cultural, educational, trade union or 

athletic activities by Canadian citizens or 

permanent residents. 

Questions pertaining to Canadian 

citizenship when the employer imposes a 

preference that the chief of senior 

executives be, or intend to become 

Canadian citizens. 

Sex Questions pertaining to an applicant’s 

gender if it is a reasonable and genuine 

requirement for a particular job, such as 

employment in a shelter for women 

escaping violence. 

Questions pertaining to a candidate’s physical 

characteristics such as colour of eyes, hair, skin, 

height, and weight. 

Questions pertaining to a candidate’s native language, 

where a candidate’s language skills were obtained 

and whether the candidate speaks English or French 

fluently (unless fluency in English or French is a 

reasonable and genuine requirement for the position). 

Questions pertaining to a candidate’s birth-place, the 

nationality of a candidate’s ancestors, spouse and 

other relatives. 

Questions pertaining to a candidate’s Canadian 

citizenship, landed immigrant or permanent residency 

status or naturalization. 

Requests for proof of Canadian citizenship or SIN. 

Questions pertaining to a candidate’s “Canadian” 

experience regarding a particular job. 

Questions pertaining to a candidate’s membership in 

organizations which are identified by a prohibited 

ground of discrimination. 

Questions about the name and location of schools 

attended by the candidate. 

All other direct or indirect questions pertaining to a 

candidate’s creed. 


candidate’s citizenship. 

All other questions concerning the applicant's sex, 

including questions regarding pregnancy or childbearing 

plans.

Trait Permissible Question Prohibited Question 

Sexual 

orientation 


Questions by a service organization that 

works with a particular community if 

membership in that community is 

justifiable as a requirement for the job. 

Marital status Questions pertaining to marital status if 

the employer serves a particular group 

identified by marital status (e.g., single 

woman) and/or if marital status is a 

reasonable and genuine requirement for 

employment. 

Family status Questions pertaining to family status if 

family status is a reasonable and 

genuine requirement for employment. 

Record of 

Offences 

Questions to determine whether the 

applicant has been convicted of a 

criminal offence for which a pardon has 

not been granted. 

Questions to determine if an applicant is 

bondable, if being bondable is a 

reasonable and genuine qualification of 

the job. 

Questions to determine if an applicant 

has a record of convictions under the 

Highway Traffic Act, if driving is an 

essential job duty (e.g., bus driver). 

Age Questions pertaining to an applicant’s 

age if the employer serves a particular 

age group and/or if age requirements are 

reasonable and genuine to qualify for 

employment. 

Disability Questions directly related to the 

applicant's ability to perform the essential 

duties of the job. 


All questions about or relating to sexual orientation. 


candidate’s marital status. 


candidate’s family status. 

All other questions pertaining to a candidate’s record 

of offences except those with respect to unpardoned 

Criminal Code convictions. 


candidate’s age. 

All other direct or indirect questions concerning the 

applicant's disability.



Employee’s Period of Employment Notice of Termination 

Ontario 19 

less than one year at least one week before the termination 

one year or more and fewer than three years at least two weeks before the termination 

three years or more and fewer than four years at least three weeks before the termination 

four years or more and fewer than five years at least four weeks before the termination 

five years or more and fewer than six years at least five weeks before the termination 

six years or more and fewer than seven years at least six weeks before the termination 

seven years or more and fewer than eight years at least seven weeks before the termination 

eight years or more at least eight weeks before the termination 

Quebec 20 

Less than one year of uninterrupted service One week 

one year to five years of uninterrupted service Two weeks 

five years to ten years of uninterrupted service Four weeks 

ten years or more of uninterrupted service Eight weeks 

19 Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, s.57. 

20 An Act respecting labour standards, RSQ, c N-1.1, s. 82.

JOUEZ-VOUS AU SOLITAIRE?! 

LA SURVEILLANCE DE VOS SYSTÉMES INFORMATIQUES. 

INTRODUCTION 


Tania da Silva 

Le 24 mai 2012 

L’utilisation d’Internet au travail et ses avantages: 

1. Communications plus rapides et efficaces pour 

optimiser la productivité; 

2. Importants outils de recherche et de consultations; 

3. Meilleure visibilité sur le marché; 

4. Amélioration de relations avec clients et partenaires 

d’affaires. 

LES RISQUES JURIDIQUES 

1. Contenu diffamatoire, harcelant, offensant ou illégal; 

2. Violation de propriété intellectuelle; 

3. Dommage à la réputation de l’entreprise; 

4. Manquement à la protection de l’information privilégiée et 

confidentielle de l’entreprise; 

5. Harcèlement; 

6. Perte de temps et baisse de productivité des employés; 

7. Risques à la sécurité du réseau. 


L’EMPLOYER PEUT-IL SURVEILLER? POURQUOI? 

OUI, à cause de: 

• Ses pouvoirs de gestion et de contrôle pour assurer le 

bon fonctionnement de l’entreprise; 

• Ses pouvoirs disciplinaires; 

• Ses pouvoirs normatifs et de règlementation; 

• Ses droits contractuels. 

• Qu’en est-il de son droit de propriété? 

QUELLES-SONT LES LIMITES AU DROIT DE 

SURVEILLANCE DE L’EMPLOYEUR? 

Les lois qui protègent la vie privée: 

1. Les lois fédérales en matière de renseignements 

personnels; 

2. La Charte québécoise des droits et libertés de la 

personne; 

3. Le Code civil du Québec; 

4. Les lois québécoises en matières de renseignements 

personnels. 

L’EXPECTATIVE DE VIE PRIVÉE 

• Qu’est-ce que l’expectative de vie privée? 

• Comment déterminer le niveau d’expectative de vie 

privée des employés en ce qui concerne l’utilisation des 

systèmes informatiques au travail? 



L’EXPECTATIVE DE VIE PRIVÉE (suite) 

• Facteurs à considérer: 

1. Les employés sont-ils au courant de la 

surveillance? 

2. Y-a-t-il eu consentement à la surveillance? 

3. La nature vulnérable des communications par 

Internet; 

4. L’environnement de travail; 

MOYENS PRATIQUES POUR DIMINUER 

L’EXPECTATIVE DE VIE PRIVÉE DES EMPLOYÉS 

• Dresser un politique écrite sur l’utilisation des systèmes 

informatiques de l’entreprises, qui comprend, notamment, une liste 

des usages non-autorisés; 

• Faire signer la politique lors de l’embauche; 

• Faire un rappel de la politique dès l’utilisation des services 

informatiques avec des messages d’avertissement ou requérir un 

mot de passe pour accéder à des sites bloqués par l’entreprise; 

• Employer des mesures disciplinaires progressives lorsque la 

politique n’est pas respectée; 

QUESTIONS? 



MERCI! 



IS THAT SOLITAIRE ON YOUR SCREEN?! 

SURVEILLANCE OF YOUR ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS 

INTRODUCTION 


Tania da Silva 

May 24, 2012 

Use of the Internet at work and its advantages: 

1. Quicker and more efficient communications to optimize 

productivity; 

2. Important research and consultation tools; 

3. Better visibility on the market; 

4. Better relationships with clients and business partners. 

THE LEGAL RISKS 

1. Defamatory, harassing, offensive or illegal content; 

2. Intellectual property infringement; 

3. Damage to the company’s reputation; 

4. Failure to protect the company’s privileged or confidential 

information; 

5. Harassment; 

6. Loss of time and diminished employee productivity; 

7. Risks to network security. 


DOES THE EMPLOYER HAVE A RIGHT TO MONITOR? 

WHY? 

YES, because of: 

• Its powers of management and control to ensure that 

the company functions properly; 

• Its disciplinary powers; 

• Its powers to create standards and regulations; 

• Its contractual rights. 

• What of its property rights? 

WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF THE EMPLOYER’S RIGHT 

TO MONITOR? 

The laws that protect privacy: 

1. Federal laws regarding personal information; 

2. Quebec’s Charter of human rights and freedoms; 

3. The Civil Code of Quebec; 

4. Quebec laws regarding personal information. 

EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY 

• What is an expectation of privacy? 

• How can the level of employees’ expectation of privacy 

with respect to the use of computer systems at work be 

determined? 



EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY (continued) 

• Factors to consider: 

1. Are the employees aware of the monitoring? 

2. Was the consent with respect to the monitoring? 

3. The vulnerable nature of Internet 

communications; 

4. The work environment; 

PRACTICAL METHODS FOR REDUCING EMPLOYEES’ 

EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY 

• Create a written policy regarding the use of the company’s 

information technology, which, amongst other things, should 

include a list of activities/uses which are not authorized; 

• Have the policy signed upon hiring; 

• Provide reminder of the policy upon use of information technology 

with warning messages or require a password to access sites 

which are blocked by the company; 

• Use progressive disciplinary measures when the policy is not 

respected; 

QUESTIONS? 



THANK YOU! 



11427551.1 

Loi de 2005 sur l’accessibilité pour les 

personnes handicapées de l’Ontario, où 

en sommes-nous aujourd’hui? 

Programme 


Richard J. Nixon and Ellen V. Swan 

le 25 mai 2012 

Norme d’accessibilité pour les services à la clientèle 

• Obligation de conformité dès le 1er janvier 2012 

1. Normes d’accessibilité intégrées 

• Obligations générales 

• La norme d’accessibilité de l’information et des communications 

• La norme pour l’emploi 

• La norme pour le transport 

2. Implications pratiques pour votre organisation/entreprise 

1. The Normes d’accessibilité pour le service à la clientèle 

Obligation de conformité dès le 1er janvier 2012 


Normes d’accessibilité pour le service à la clientèle: 

contexte et éléments de base 

Devoir de conformité avec: 

A. Loi de 2005 sur l’accessibilité pour les personnes 

handicapées de l’Ontario (LAPHO) 

1. Norme d’accessibilité pour les services à la clientèle (avant le 1 er 

janvier 2012) 

2. Règlement intégré sur l'accessibilité – exigences générales (dès 

2014) 

3. Norme d’accessibilité de l’information et des communications 

(dès 2012) 

4. Norme d’accessibilité à l’emploi (dès 2016 pour la plupart) 

5. Norme d’accessiblité pour le transport (dès 2011) 

6. Norme d'accessibilité au milieu bâti (entrée en vigueur peu 

probable avant 2013) 

Norme d’accessibilité pour les services à la clientèle: 

Que devez-vous faire? 

Qui est soumis à cette norme? 

• Toutes les personnes ou organisations qui: 

1. fournissent des biens ou des services directement 

au public ou à d’autres tierces parties et 

2. qui emploient au moins une personne en Ontario. 

• «fournisseur de biens ou de services» : personne ou 

organisation à laquelle le Règlement s’applique 



Que doit faire votre organisation? 

• Mettre en place des politiques, pratiques et 

procédures régissant la fourniture de vos biens ou 

services aux personnes handicapées 

• Faire des efforts raisonnables pour assurer que ces 

politiques, pratiques et procédures soient 

compatibles avec les principes de la LAPHO 

• Communiquer avec une personne handicapée, en 

tenant compte de son invalidité 






• Avoir en place un processus de rétroaction pour vos clients 

• Traiter de l’utilisation des animaux d’assistance et des 

personnes de soutien 

• Traiter de l’utilisation des appareils ou accessoires 

fonctionnels 

• Former vos employés, entrepreneurs, bénévoles et agents 

• Fournir un avis en cas de perturbation/interruption des 

services utilisés par les personnes handicapées 




• Si votre entreprise a 20 employés ou plus: 

1. Rendre vos politiques, pratiques et 

procédures disponibles dans un format 

accessible 

2. Rendre compte au Ministère des services 

sociaux et communautaires de l’Ontario 

2. Règlement intégré sur l'accessibilité 



Règlement intégré sur l'accessibilité: obligations générales 

Politiques: 

• comment votre organisation atteindra la conformité en respectant les 

normes d'accessibilité 

• déclaration d'engagement qui certifie la détermination de l'organisation 

• grandes entreprises: 1er janvier 2014 

• petites entreprises: 1er jamvier 2015 

Formation 

• doit fournir une formation portant sur les exigences des normes 

d'accessibilité et sur le Code des droits de la personne de l’Ontario 

• le secteur publique et les grandes entreprises devront tenir à jour un 

document décrivant les politiques de formation 

Règlement intégré sur l'accessibilité: obligations générales 

Plans d'accessibilité 

• Le secteur public et les grandes entreprises doivent élaborer, 

mettre en place, maintenir en place et documenter un plan 

d'accessibilité sur plusieurs années. 

• Avant le 1 er janvier 2014 

Guichets à libre service 

• secteur public: intégrer des fonctionnalités d’accessibilité 

• secteur privé: tenir compte de l’accessibilité 

• grandes entreprises: 1 er janvier 2014 

• petites entreprises: 1 er janvier 2015 

Règlement intégré sur l'accessibilité: exigences relatives à 

l'accessibilité de l'information et des communications 

Processus de rétroaction 

• veiller à ce que les formats et les supports de communications soient 

accessibles sur demande 

• grandes entreprises: 1er janvier 2015 

• petites enterprises 1er janvier 2016 





Quand les formats accessibles sont-ils requis? 

•Sur demande, fournir des formats accessibles ou des services d’aide à 

la communication 

• De façon opportune tenant compte des besoins d’accessibilité 

de la personne 

• À un coût ne dépassant pas celui demandé à toute autre 

personne 

•Aviser le public de la disponibilité des formats accessibles et des 

services d’aide à la communication 

• Grandes entreprises: 1er janvier 2016 

• Petites entreprises: 1er janvier 2017 



Mesures d’urgence et renseignements sur la sécurité publique 

• Si votre entreprise prépare des procédures d’urgence, plans ou autre 

renseignement sur la sécurité publique et rend cette information disponible 

au public, vous devez fournir cette information sur un support accessible ou 

avec des services d’aide à la communication appropriés dès que possible 

sur demande 

• conformité requise à partir du 1er janvier 2012 



Sites web et contenus web accessibles: 

• doivent être conformes aux directives WCAG 2.0 du W3C au 

niveau AA. 

• Nouveau contenu web: 

• secteur public: 1 er janvier 2012 


• Tout contenu web (avec quelques exceptions): 

• secteur public: 1 er janvier 2020 






Les établissements d’éducation et de formation doivent, sur 

demande: 

• fournir un matériel d'enseignement ou de formation dans 

un format accessible: 

• fournir les dossiers scolaires et l'information relative aux 

conditions d'obtention du diplôme, à la disponibilité des 

cours et à leur description 

• grandes organisations: 1er janvier 2013 

• petites organisations: 1er janvier 2015 



Éditeurs de matériel d'enseignement et de formation 

• rendre les manuels accessibles ou rapidement 

convertibles sur demande 

• au plus tard le 1er janvier 2015 

• rendre le matériel imprimé accessible ou 

rapidement convertible sur demande 

• au plus tard le 1er janvier 2020 

Règlement intégré sur l'accessibilité: normes pour l’emploi 

Sauf indication contraire: 

• grandes organisations: 1 er janvier 2016 

• petites organisation: 1 er janvier 2017 




Recrutment 

• aviser les employés et le public de la disponibilité de mesures 

d’adaptation pour les candidats handicapés durant le 

processus de recrutement 

• aviser chaque candidat à un emploi sélectionné pour participer 

au processus d’évaluation ou au processus de sélection que 

des mesures d’adaptation sont disponibles sur demande 

• consulter le candidat sélectionné qui demande une mesure 

d’adaptation et lui fournir une mesure d’adaptation appropriée 

• la décision quant au type de mesure d’adaptation fournie 

réside chez l’employeur 


• aviser les candidats retenus de ses politiques en matière de 

mesures d’adaptation pour les employés handicapés 

• informer ses employés de ses politiques en matière de 

soutien aux employés handicapés 

• consulter l’employé handicapé pour lui fournir des formats 

accessibles et des aides à la communication pour : 

• l’information nécessaire pour faire son travail 

• l’information généralement mise à la disposition des 

employés au lieu de travail 

Integrated Accessibility Regulation: Employment Standard 

Renseignements relatifs aux interventions 

d’urgence sur le lieu de travail 

• fournir des renseignements individualisés relatifs aux 

interventions d’urgence sur le lieu de travail aux employés 

handicapés si nécessaire et si l’employeur est au courant de 

leur besoin de mesures d’adaptation 

• désigner une personne pour aider l’employé si nécessaire, et 

avec le consentement de ce dernier 

• examine les renseignements individualisés relatifs aux 

interventions d’urgence sur le lieu de travail périodiquement 

• conformité requise au plus tard le 1er janvier 2012 




Élaborer et instaurer un processus de plans d’adaptation individualisés 

abordant ce qui suit : 

• La manière dont l’employé peut participer à l’élaboration du plan 

• Les moyens utilisés pour évaluer l’employé de façon individuelle 

• La manière dont l’employeur peut demander une évaluation externe 

• La manière dont l’employé peut demander un représentant 

• Les mesures prises pour protéger la vie privée de l’employé 

• La fréquence et le mode de réalisation des réexamens et des 

actualisations 

• Si refusé, la manière dont les motifs du refus seront communiqués à 

l’employé 

• Les moyens de fournir le plan dans un format accessible 


Processus de retour au travail 

• élaborer et instaurer un processus de retour au travail pour les 

employés qui sont absents en raison d’un handicap et qui ont 

besoin de mesures d’adaptation liées à leur handicap afin de 

retourner au travail 

• élaborer des étapes pour faciliter le retour au travail 

• utiliser des plans d’adaptation individualisés documentés 

• prendre en compte les besoins d’accessibilité, de même que les 

plans d’adaptation individualisés en redéployant les employée 

handicapés 

Règlement intégré sur l'accessibilité: normes pour le 

transport 

• Si votre organisation ne possède pas un système de 

transport qui tombe sous la catégorie « Autres services 

de transport » dans la norme proposée, vous n’aurez 

probablement pas besoin de vous conformer à cette 

norme. 

• S’applique uniquement aux organisations qui offrent des 

services de transport au public ou à leurs employés 



3. Implications pratiques pour votre organisation 

Implications pratiques pour votre organisation 

• Votre organisation aura probablement à réviser: 

• ses politiques, pratiques et procédures 

• ses plateformes de communication et d’information, et 

• ses pratiques et politiques d’emploi 

• Votre organisation devra également prendre en 

considération le devoir d’accommodement en vertu du 

Code des droits de la personne de l’Ontario 

• Les obligations d’accommodement peuvent déjà faire 

partie du devoir d’accommodation 


Autres lois sur l’accessibilité (par exemple: Code des droits de 

la personne de l’Ontario) 

• Ni la LAPHO, ni les normes ne remplacent ou changent 

les devoirs qu’a votre organisation en vertu des lois 

existantes 

• Lorsqu’une norme crée des règles différentes d’autres 

lois, votre organisation devra se conformer aux deux 

• Si deux lois sont en conflit, la loi qui fournit le plus 

haut degré d’accessibilité devra être suivie 




• Sensibilisation du public à la LAPHO 

• Les parties à des affaires en droit de la personne 

soulèvent la LAPHO 

• comme élément de preuve (registres de formation) 

• comme norme d’accommodement (portes 

automatiques) 

• la LAPHO fait tout à fait partie de la conscience 

publique 

• responsabilité dans l’esprit du public 

Questions? 



Where is The Accessibility For Ontarians 

With Disabilities Act, 2005 Today? 

11427551.1 

Agenda 


Richard J. Nixon and Ellen V. Swan 

The Accessibility Standards for Customer Service 

• Compliance was required on January 1, 2012 

1. The Integrated Accessibility Standards 

• General Obligations 

• The Information and Communication Standard 

• The Employment Standard 

• The Transportation Standard 

2. Practical Implications for Your Organization 

1. The Accessibility Standards for Customer Service 

Compliance was required on January 1, 2012 


The Accessibility Standards for Customer Service: Context 

and Background 

Must comply with: 

A. AODA 

1. Customer Service Standard (by January 1, 2012) 

2. Integrated Accessibility Regulation general requirements 

(starting 2014) 

3. Accessible Information and Communication Standard 

(starting 2012) 

4. Employment Standard (mostly starting 2016) 

5. Transportation Standard (starting 2011) 

6. Built Environment Standard (not likely law before 2013) 

The Accessibility Standards for Customer Service: 

What Do You Have to Do? 

Who Must Comply? 

• Every person or organization that: 

1. provides goods or services to members of the 

public or other third parties; and 

2. has at least one employee in Ontario 

• “provider of goods or services” means a person or 

organization to whom the Standard applies 



What Does Your Organization Have to Do? 

• implement policies, practices and procedures 

governing your organization’s provision of goods or 

services to persons with disabilities 

• use reasonable efforts to ensure these policies, 

practices and procedures are consistent with 

AODA’s principles 

• communicate with customers and clients in a 

manner that takes into account a person’s disability 






• have a feedback process for customers 

• address the use of support persons and service 

animals 

• address the use of assistive devices 

• train employees, contractors, volunteers and agents 

• provide notice of a disruption in services used by 

persons with disabilities 




• If your organization has 20 or more employees: 

1. make your policies, practices and procedures 

available in accessible formats 

2. report to the Ontario Ministry of Community and 

Social Services 

2. The Integrated Accessibility Regulation 



Integrated Accessibility Regulation: General Obligations 

Policies: 

• how your organization will achieve accessibility through meeting 

the Standards 

• statement of organizational commitment 

• large organizations: January 1, 2014 

• small organizations: January 1, 2015 

Training 

• must train on the requirements of the accessibility standards and 

the Ontario Human Rights Code 

• public sector and large organizations must keep training records 

Integrated Accessibility Regulation: General Obligations 

Accessibility Plans 

• public sector and large organizations must establish, implement, 

maintain and document a multi-year accessibility plan 

• by January 1, 2014 

Self-service Kiosks 

• public sector: incorporate accessibility features 

• private sector: have regard to accessibility 



Integrated Accessibility Regulation: 

Information and Communications Standard 

Feedback Processes 

• provide or arrange for the provision of accessible formats and 

communications supports, upon request 







When accessible formats are required: 

•upon request, provide accessible formats and communication supports 

• in a timely manner that takes into account the person’s 

accessibility needs 

• at a cost that is no more than the regular cost charged to other 

persons 

•notify the public about availability of accessible formats and 

communication supports 

• Large organizations: January 1, 2016 

• Small organizations: January 1, 2017 



Emergency procedures or public safety information 

• If your organization prepares emergency procedures, plans or public safety 

information and makes the information available to the public, must provide 

information in an accessible format or with appropriate communication 

supports as soon as practicable upon request 

• compliance was required on January 1, 2012 



Accessible websites and web content 

• must conform to the World Wide Web Consortium Web 

Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 at Level AA 

• New web content: 

• public sector: January 1, 2012 


• All web content (some exceptions): 

• public sector: January 1, 2020 






Educational and training institutions must, upon request: 

• provide educational / training resources / materials in an 

accessible format: 

• provide student records and information on program 

requirements, availability and descriptions in an 

accessible format to persons with disabilities. 





Producers of educational or training material 

• make accessible or conversion ready versions of 

textbooks available upon request 


• make accessible or conversion ready versions of 

printed materials available upon request 



Unless otherwise specified: 






Recruitment 

• notify employees and the public about availability of 

accommodation in recruitment processes 

• notify job applicants selected to participate in assessment or 

selection process that accommodations are available upon 

request 

• if selected applicant requests accommodation, must consult 

with applicant and provide suitable accommodation 

• decision as to which accommodation is provided rests with the 

employer 


• notify successful applicants of policies for accommodating 

employees with disabilities 

• inform employees of policies 

• consult with employee to provide accessible formats and 

communication supports for 

• information to perform the employee’s job 

• information generally available to employees, upon 

request 


Workplace emergency response information 

• provide individualized workplace emergency response 

information to employees with disabilities if necessary and 

employer is aware of the need for accommodation 

• designate assistance provider if necessary and employee 

consents 

• review the individualized workplace emergency response 

information periodically 

• compliance was required on January 1, 2012 




Develop process for Individual Accommodation Plans addressing: 

• how an employee can participate in development of plan 

• how an employee is assessed on an individual basis 

• how the employer can request an outside evaluation 

• how an employee can request a representative 

• steps taken to protect the employee’s privacy 

• frequency and manner of review and updating 

• if denied, how the reasons will be provided to the employee 

• means of providing plan in an accessible format 


Return to Work and Redeployment 

• develop return to work process for employees absent from work 

due to disability and require disability-related accommodations to 

return to work 

• outline steps to facilitate return to work 

• use individual documented accommodation plans 

• take into account the accessibility needs, as well as individual 

accommodation plans, when redeploying employees with 

disabilities 

Integrated Accessibility Regulation: Transportation Standard 

• If your organization does not have a transportation 

system which falls under “Other Transportation Services” 

in the proposed standard, it will not likely have to comply 

• Only applies to organizations which offer transportation 

services to the public or employees 



3. Practical Implications for Your Organization 

Practical Implications for Your Organization 

• Your organization will likely have to revamp: 

• policies, practices and procedures; 

• information and communication platforms; and 

• employment practices and policies 

• Your organization will also have to consider the duty to 

accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code 

• Accommodation obligations may already exist as part of 

duty to accommodate 


Other accessibility laws (e.g. Human Rights Code) 

• Neither the AODA nor the Standards replace or change 

what your organization is required to do under existing 

laws 

• Where a standard creates different rules than other laws, 

your organization will have to comply with both 

• If two laws conflict, the law that provides the higher level 

of accessibility must be followed 




• Public Awareness of the AODA 

• parties in human rights matters are raising the 

AODA 

• as a source of evidence (i.e. training records) 

• as a standard of accommodation (i.e. automatic doors) 

• the AODA is very much a part of public consciousness 

• liability in the court of public opinion 

Questions? 





WHERE IS THE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH 

DISABILITIES ACT, 2005 TODAY? 

BY RICHARD J. NIXON & ELLEN V. SWAN 

MAY 2012



The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (the “AODA”) aims to create a “barrier-free Ontario” 

for persons with disabilities. In contrast to the Ontario Human Rights Code and its complaints-based system, 

the AODA establishes a compliance-based system. The AODA requires Ontario’s businesses and 

organizations to comply with mandatory accessibility standards. 

The AODA contemplates five accessibility standards in the following areas: (i) customer service; (ii) 

information and communication; (iii) employment; (iv) transportation; and (v) the built environment. These 

accessibility standards set out the rules that Ontario businesses and organizations must follow in identifying, 

removing, and preventing barriers to accessibility. 

The AODA came into effect in 2005. The Customer Service Standard came into effect in 2008. In 2011, the 

Ministry of Community and Social Services, the ministry responsible for the administration of the AODA (the 

“Ministry”) enacted the “Integrated Accessibility Standards”, which incorporates the Information and 

Communication Standard, the Employment Standard and the Transportation Standard. While the Proposed 

Built Environment Standard has been published, it has not yet become law. This paper will briefly review the 

Customer Service Standard and the Integrated Accessibility Standards, and the obligations they impose on 

Ontario organizations. 

1. The Customer Service Standard 1 

The first standard to come into force was the Customer Service Standard. The Customer Service Standard 

applies to all organizations, public, private or non-profit, that provide goods or services, either directly to the 

public or to other third parties, and that have one or more employees in Ontario. 2 This includes consultants, 

manufacturers and wholesalers, as well as other business-to-business and professional services. 

The broader public sector was required to comply with the Customer Service Standard by January 1, 2010, 

and private providers of goods or services by January 1, 2012. 

As a result, all providers of goods and services in Ontario are now required to: 

• implement policies, practices and procedures addressing how the organization provides goods and 

services to persons with disabilities; 3 

• ensure those policies, practices and procedures are consistent with the principles of dignity, 

independence, integrated provisions of services and equal opportunity; 4 

• communicate with customers in a manner that takes into account a person’s disability; 5 

• create a feedback process for customers and make information about that process readily available to 

its customers; 6 

1 Accessibility Standards for Customer Service, O. Reg. 429/07. 

2 Ibid., s. 1. 

3 Ibid., s.3(1). 

4 Ibid., s.3(2). 

5 Ibid., s. 3(4). 

6 Ibid., s. 7.



• ensure that the organization’s policies, practices and procedures address the use of assistive devices 

by persons with disabilities; 7 

• ensure that the organization’s policies, practices and procedures allow the use of service animals on 

the organization’s premises (subject to limited exceptions imposed by law); 8 

• ensure that the organization’s policies, practices and procedures allow the use of support persons on 

the organization’s premises; 9 

• train employees, contractors, volunteers and agents about the provision of its goods or services to 

persons with disabilities; 10 and 

• provide notice of temporary disruptions in facilities or services to persons with disabilities. 11 

In addition, public and private sector organizations with 20 or more employees must: 

• ensure that their polices, practices and procedures are available upon request in accessible formats 

that take into account a person’s disability;12 and 

• file an accessibility report regarding compliance to the Ministry of Community and Social Services.13 

All organizations that provide goods or services and have at least one employee in Ontario should now be 

complying with the Customer Service Standard. Organizations that are required to file accessibility reports with 

the Ministry have until December 31, 2012 to do so. The questions organizations will be required to answer in 

their accessibility reports are attached hereto at Appendix “A”. If an organization fails to comply with the 

Customer Service Standard, the Ministry states: 

7 Ibid., s. 3(3). 

8 Ibid., s. 4. 

9 Ibid., s. 4. 

10 Ibid., s.6. 

11 Ibid., s.5. 

12 Ibid., s.8. 

“Our first goal is always to help organizations meet their accessibility requirements. We are 

here to help you meet your commitments with educational tools and templates that will make 

it easier for you to understand what you need to do and how to do it. 

For organizations that persist in not meeting their obligations, the government has the power 

to conduct inspections, assign monetary penalties and prosecute through the courts. 

The Licence Appeal Tribunal will hear appeals from organizations on compliance matters. 

The tribunal will not hear complaints from individuals. A person who feels that their human 

13 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11, s. 14.



rights have not been met will still need to direct their complaints to the Human Rights Tribunal 

of Ontario.” 14 

Therefore, while the AODA contemplates enforcement of the standards by the Ministry, the Ministry’s first step 

in the face of non-compliance will be to assist organizations in meeting their obligations. 

2. The Integrated Accessibility Standards 

The Integrated Accessibility Standard (the “IAS”) 15 incorporates the requirements of the Information and 

Communications Standard, the Employment Standard, and the Transportation Standard into one regulation. 

Some requirements under the IAS came into force in 2011 and others will be phased in over time between 

2012 and 2021. 

Each standard sets out different compliance deadlines for different classes of organizations subject to that 

standard. The classes of organizations subject to the standards are based on (a) whether the organization is 

in the public or private sector, and (b) by the number of employees the organization has. Large public or 

private organizations have 50 or more employees, whereas small public or private organizations have at least 

one but less than 50 employees. 16 

In addition to setting out the specific requirements of the Information and Communications Standard, the 

Employment Standard and the Transportation Standard, the IAS also sets out various general obligations. 

These general obligations require companies and organizations to: 

• Create a policy regarding how the organization achieves or will achieve accessibility through meeting 

the standards in the IAS (by January 1, 2014 for large organizations and January 1, 2015 for small 

organizations); 17 

• Create a Statement of Organizational Commitment explaining how the organization will meet the 

needs of persons with disabilities in a timely manner (by January 1, 2014 for large organizations; small 

organizations are exempt from this requirement); 18 

• Create an Accessibility Plan that is posted on the organization’s website (if any) and that can be 

provided in an accessible format upon request and review and update the Accessibility Plan at least 

once every 5 years (by January 1, 2014 for large organizations; small organizations are exempt from 

this requirement); 19 

14 http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/accessibility/customerService, May 9, 2012. 

15 Integrated Accessibility Standard, O. Reg. 191/11 [IAS]. 

16 Ibid., s. 2. 

17 Ibid., s. 3(1). 

18 Ibid., s. 3(2). 

19 Ibid., s. 4.



• Have regard to the accessibility for persons with disabilities when designing, procuring or acquiring 

self-service kiosks (by January 1, 2014 for large organizations, by January 1, 2015 for small 

organizations); 20 

• Train all employees and volunteers on the accessibility standards in the IAS as well as the Ontario 

Human Rights Code (by January 1, 2015 for large organizations, by January 1, 2016 for small 

organizations); 21 and 

• File Accessibility Reports (small organizations are exempted from this requirement). 22 

We expect that the Ministry will impose a similar reporting obligation to that which has been established for the 

Customer Service Standard (see Appendix A). A table of all obligations and the compliance deadline is 

attached hereto at Appendix “B”. 

(a) The Information and Communications Standard 

The goal of the Information and Communications Standard is to remove barriers to persons with disabilities in 

accessing and conveying information and communications relating to the provision of goods and services. 

The term “information” is broadly defined under the Information and Communications Standard and includes 

all data, facts and knowledge that exists in any format such as text, audio, digital or images and that conveys 

meaning. 

The definition of “communications” is similarly broad and is defined as an interaction between two or more 

persons or entities, or any combination of them, where information is provided, sent or received. 23 

The Information and Communications Standard therefore applies to company or organizational websites, 

advertising or promotional brochures, invoice statements, order forms, feedback forms and complaint forms, 

and all manner of communications between the organization and the public, its customers or clients. 

The requirements under the Information and Communications Standard are to be phased in between 2012 

and 2025, as more particularly discussed below. 

(i) Feedback 

Any organization that has processes for receiving and responding to feedback must ensure that such 

processes are accessible to persons with disabilities. Organizations must provide, or arrange for the provision 

of, accessible formats and communications supports with respect to feedback processes upon request, and 

shall notify the public about the availability of accessible formats and communication supports. 24 

20 Ibid., s. 6. 

21 Ibid., s. 7. 

22 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11, s. 14; IAS, s. 8. 

23 IAS, s. 9. 

24 Ibid. at s. 11.



Large organizations must meet the feedback requirements by January 1, 2015, and small organizations by 

January 1, 2016. 25 

(ii) Accessible formats and communication supports 

Upon the request of an individual with a disability, and following consultation with the individual making the 

request, organizations must provide, or arrange for the provision of, accessible formats and communication 

supports for persons with disabilities. The provision of an accessible format or communication support must 

be timely, done in a manner that takes into account the person’s accessibility needs due to disability, and at a 

cost that is no more than the regular cost charged to other persons. Organizations must also notify the public 

about the availability of accessible formats and communication supports. 26 

With respect to printed material, accessible formats and communication supports can include e-text or other 

accessible electronic formats, Braille-ready electronic formats or a Braille printout, accessible audio format, or 

large print format. With respect to audio materials or spoken communications, accessible formats and 

communication supports can include structured text transcription or captioning of the speech or audio, the 

ability to amplify, pause and repeat audio, or a sign language version of the material. With respect to in 

person, unplanned spoken conversations, communication supports can include access to the use of an 

assistive listening system, written transcription through remote relay, augmentative or alternative 

communication methods, i.e. writing, or sign language interpreters. Accessibility can, for example, be as 

simple as sending a text message instead of making a phone call, or repeating information slowly and clearly. 

Large organizations must meet the accessible formats and communication supports requirements by January 

1, 2016, and small organizations by January 1, 2017. 27 

(iii) Emergency procedure, plans or public safety information 

Any organization that prepares emergency procedures, plans, or public safety information, and makes the 

information available to the public, must provide that information in an accessible format or with appropriate 

communication supports as soon as practicable upon request. This requirement came into effect on January 

1, 2012. 28 If an organization does not prepare such emergency procedures, plans or public safety information, 

there is no obligation to begin doing so. 

(iv) Accessible websites and web content 

The Ontario Government, the Legislative Assembly, public sector organizations and large private sector 

organizations are obliged to make both internet and intranet websites and web content accessible by 

conforming to the “World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0” at Level AA. Small 

private sector organizations are exempt from this requirement. 29 

As of January 1, 2012, the Government of Ontario, the Legislative Assembly and public sector organizations 

were obliged to ensure that new internet and intranet websites and web content conformed to this 

25 Ibid. at s. 11. 

26 Ibid., s. 12. 

27 Ibid. 

28 Ibid. s. 13. 

29 Ibid. at s. 14.



requirement. By January 1, 2020, the Government of Ontario, the Legislative Assembly and public sector 

organizations must ensure that all internet and intranet websites and web content (i.e. new and pre-existing 

internet and intranet websites and web content) complies with this requirement. 30 

Large private sector organizations must ensure that new internet and intranet websites and web content 

conform to this requirement by January 1, 2014 and that all internet and intranet websites and web content 

conforms by January 1, 2021. 31 

(v) Educational and training resources and materials 

Upon request by persons with disabilities, educational and training institutions must provide educational and 

training resources and materials, as well as student records and information on program requirements, 

availability and descriptions in an accessible format. 32 

Additionally, organizations that are school boards, educational or training institutions must provide educators 

with accessibility awareness training regarding accessible program or course delivery and instruction. 33 

Large organizations must meet these educational and training resources requirements by January 1, 2013, 

and small organizations by January 1, 2015. 34 

(vi) Producers of educational or training materials 

By January 1, 2015, producers of educational or training material must make accessible or conversion-ready 

versions of textbooks available to educational and training institutions upon request. By January 1, 2020, 

producers of educational or training material must make accessible or conversion-ready versions of printbased 

educational or training supplementary learning resources for educational or training institutions 

available to institutions upon request. 35 

Additionally, upon the request of an individual with a disability, libraries of educational and training institutions 

must provide accessible or conversion-ready formats of print-based resources or materials by January 1, 

2015. Special collections, archival materials, rare books and donations are exempt from the requirements. 36 

(b) The Employment Standard 

The Employment Standard obliges employers to engage in the proactive identification, removal and prevention 

of barriers that hinder the full participation in employment of persons with disabilities. 

30 Ibid. s. 14. 

31 Ibid. s. 14. 

32 Ibid. s. 15. 

33 Ibid. s. 16. 

34 Ibid., ss. 15 and 16. 

35 Ibid. s. 17. 

36 Ibid. at s. 18.



The Employment Standard goes beyond an employer’s duty to accommodate individuals with disabilities as 

outlined in the Ontario Human Rights Code by requiring employers to have policies and procedures for 

establishing individual accommodation plans in all phases of the employment cycle. The Employment 

Standard will have a broad effect on how organizations interact with and accommodate persons with 

disabilities. 

The Employment Standard applies to all employers in Ontario that employ at least one paid employee. This 

Standard does not apply to volunteers and other unpaid individuals (e.g., co-op placements, high school work 

experience placements). 

As of January 1, 2012, employers were required to comply with the obligation respecting workplace 

emergency response information, as discussed below. Compliance with the remainder of the Employment 

Standard will be required as follows: 37 

Category of Obligated Organization Compliance Deadline 

Government of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly January 1, 2013 

Large designated public sector organizations January 1, 2014 

Small designated public sector organizations January 1, 2015 

Large organizations January 1, 2016 

Small organizations January 1, 2017 

The Employment Standard imposes intensive administrative obligations on employers with respect to the 

following aspects of the employment relationship: 

(i) Recruitment 

Employers must notify their employees and the public about the availability of accommodation for applicants 

with disabilities during recruitment processes. 38 Employers must also notify job applicants when they are 

selected to participate in an assessment or selection process that accommodations are available upon 

request in relation to the materials or processes to be used. If an applicant does request accommodation, the 

employer must consult with the applicant and provide or arrange for the provision of a suitable accommodation 

in a manner that takes into account the applicant’s accessibility needs due to disability. 39 When making offers 

of employment, employers must notify successful applicants of their policies for accommodating employees 

with disabilities. 40 

37 Ibid. at s. 21. 

38 Ibid. at s. 22. 

39 Ibid. at s. 23. 

40 Ibid. at s. 24.

(ii) Employee notifications 



Employers are obligated to inform employees about their policies relating to the support of employees with 

disabilities, including any policies with respect to job accommodations that take into account an employee’s 

accessibility needs due to disability. Employers are obligated to inform employees about such policies as soon 

as practicable after they begin their employment. Updated information must also be provided whenever there 

is a change to existing policies on the provision of accommodation. 41 

(iii) Individual accommodation plans 

Large organizations must have a written process in place for the development of individual accommodation 

plans for employees with disabilities. The written process must include a number of detailed prescribed 

elements set out in section 28 of the IAS. 42 

Unlike the Ontario Human Rights Code, which obliges employers to accommodate only to the point of “undue 

hardship”, the Employment Standard makes no reference to any such limit on accommodation. It would 

therefore be crucial to impose such limits in the organization’s process for the development of individual 

accommodation plans. 

(iv) Return-to-work process 

41 Ibid. at s. 25. 

42 The prescribed elements of the written individual accommodation plan process are: 

1. The manner in which an employee requesting accommodation can participate in the development of the 

individual accommodation plan. 

2. The means by which an employee is assessed on an individual basis. 

3. The manner in which the employer can request an evaluation by an outside medical or other expert, at the 

employer’s expense, to assist the employer in determining if accommodation can be achieved and, if so, 

how accommodation can be achieved. 

4. The manner in which the employee can request the participation of a representative from their bargaining 

agent, where the employee is represented by a bargaining agent, or other representative from the workplace, 

where the employee is not represented by a bargaining agent, in the development of the accommodation 

plan. 

5. The steps taken to protect the privacy of the employee’s personal information. 

6. The frequency with which the individual accommodation plan will be reviewed and updated and the manner 

in which it will be done. 

7. If an individual accommodation plan is denied, the manner in which the reasons for the denial will be 

provided to the employee. 

8. The means of providing the individual accommodation plan in a format that takes into account the 

employee’s accessibility needs due to disability.



Large organizations must develop and have in place return-to-work processes for employees who have been 

absent from work due to a disability and require accommodation to return to work. Such processes must be 

documented, must outline the steps that the employer will take to facilitate the return to work, and must 

include any documented individual accommodation plans as part of the process. 43 

As there is no reference to the concept of an “undue hardship” limit on the employer’s duty to accommodate, it 

is important to establish such limits within the employer’s return-to-work process. 

(v) Performance management, career development, advancement, and redeployment 

Employers who provide performance management, career development, advancement and/or redeployment 

to their employees must do so in a manner that takes into account the accessibility needs of employees with 

disabilities as well as individual accommodation plans. 44 

(vi) Accessible formats and communication supports 

Upon request by an employee with a disability, and following consultation with the employee making the 

request, employers must provide accessible formats and communication supports for information that is 

necessary for the performance of the employee’s job and for information that is generally available to all 

employees in the workplace. 45 

There is no obligation on employers to provide accessible formats or communication supports absent a 

request from an employee to provide such accessible formats or communication supports. 

(vii) Workplace Emergency Response Information 

Employers are obliged to provide individualized workplace emergency response information to employees who 

have a disability, if the disability is such that the information is necessary and the employer is aware of the 

need for such accommodation. Employers have been obliged to do so since January 1, 2012. 46 

If an employee who receives individualized workplace emergency response information requires assistance 

and the employee consents, the employer must provide the workplace emergency response information to a 

person designated to assist the employee. The workplace emergency response information must be provided 

to the employee as soon as practicable after the employer becomes aware of the need for accommodation, 

and must be reviewed if the employee moves to a different location, his or her accommodation needs change, 

or the employer alters its general emergency response policies. 

Organizations should review their emergency information and consider how employees learn about 

emergencies and what are staff expected to do in the event of an emergency. Determining who needs help 

may not be straightforward. The Ministry has prepared resources for employers to satisfy their obligations with 

respect to providing emergency response information to employees with disabilities. 

(c) The Transportation Standard 

43 Ibid. at s. 29. 

44 Ibid. at ss. 30-31. 

45 Ibid. at s. 26. 

46 Ibid. at s. 27.



The third and final accessibility standard incorporated into the IAS is the Transportation Standard. The 

Transportation Standard aims to prevent and remove barriers to public transportation in Ontario. Specifically, 

the Transportation Standard addresses barriers that people with disabilities face when using conventional 

transportation (e.g. TTC, Viva, London Transit), specialized transportation (e.g. Wheel-Trans, DARTS), 

transportation services provided by broader public sector organizations (e.g. school boards), taxicabs and 

ferries. 

The Transportation Standard applies to public transportation providers including the Ontario government, 

municipalities, transportation commissions or authorities that provide passenger transportation services. The 

Transportation Standard also applies to broader public sector organizations that provide transportation 

services such as hospitals, taxis, public school boards, colleges and universities. 

The Transportation Standard is extensive and sets out detailed transportation-specific operational practices 

and procedures that are beyond the scope of this paper and will not be addressed. 

Compliance with the requirements in the Transportation Standard commenced in 2011 and will be phased in 

through 2017. 

What’s next? The Accessibility Standard for the Built Environment 

The fifth accessibility standard contemplated by the AODA is the Built Environment Standard. 

The aim of the Built Environment Standard is to remove barriers in buildings and outdoor spaces for people 

with disabilities in Ontario. The Built Environment Standard will only apply to new construction and extensive 

renovation. It is likely that the Ontario Government will ensure consistency between the requirements of this 

Standard and the requirements of the Building Code. 

Work is still continuing on the proposed Built Environment Standard and there is no anticipated timeline for 

when it come into force. 

It is expected that those organizations that are required to comply will have some time to become familiar with 

the proposed Built Environment Standard before compliance is required. Compliance may also be staggered 

for different elements and/or classes of organizations. 


The enactment of the AODA and its accessibility standards is a clear message from the Government of 

Ontario that it is time for attitudes and environments to change to enable accessibility for persons with 

disabilities. Ontario’s businesses and organizations must now actively strive to build accessibility into their 

regular practices and procedures. 

To achieve compliance with the AODA and the accessibility standards, Ontario businesses and organizations 

must examine, and will likely have to revamp: 

• policies, practices and procedures that govern the provision of goods and services to persons with 

disabilities; 

• information and communication platforms to ensure that any information that is communicated to 

employees or the public is done so in accessible formats that accommodate a range of disabilities; 

and 

• employment practices and policies relating, but not limited to job advertisement, candidate selection, 

interviewing, performance management, career development, and workplace emergencies to ensure



that applicants and employees with disabilities are given the same opportunities and treated the same 

as all other applicants and employees. 

With respect to the Employment Standard, employers should consider the interplay and overlap between the 

Employment Standard and the duty to accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code. For example, 

while not expressly stated in the language of the Human Rights Code, the duty to accommodate most likely 

includes the obligation to provide employees with information in a manner that takes account of an employee’s 

disability, at least to the point of undue hardship. Put another way, it would likely be discrimination under the 

Human Rights Code to fail to provide information about performance evaluation criteria to an employee with a 

disability when such information is provided to all other employees (unless to provide such information to an 

employee with a disability would amount to undue hardship, which hardship is difficult to imagine). Therefore, 

consider whether the Employment Standard’s obligation to provide performance evaluation criteria in a form 

that takes account of an employee’s disability is a new obligation, or merely the rewording of an existing 

obligation under the duty to accommodate. 

Furthermore, it may be that Ontario employers will be able to raise the AODA and the Employment Standard 

(or indeed the other Standards) as a defence to a human rights application. The AODA could be raised as the 

standard of accommodation that is to be met. 

However while the Employment Standard does import a fair amount of proactivity into an employer’s duty to 

accommodate, the onus remains on the employee to request accommodation, accessible formats, or 

communication supports. Further, the employer remains in control of its processes for accommodation and 

return to work. 

It is also important to remember that where a provision of the AODA or a standard conflicts with a provision of 

any other act or regulation, the provision that provides the highest level of accessibility for persons with 

disabilities will prevail. 47 

With a statutory regime such as the AODA, one must not discount the risk of liability in the court of public 

opinion. The AODA and its standards are quickly becoming a part of Ontario’s public consciousness, and have 

been raised, both as a means of obtaining evidence and as a standard of accommodation, before the Ontario 

Human Rights Tribunal (the “HRTO”). Indeed, the HRTO has ordered production of an employer’s documents 

with respect to the training the employer was required to conduct under the Customer Service Standard in the 

context of an application under the Ontario Human Rights Code. 48 In ordering production, the HRTO stated 

that the information was “arguably relevant to the issues in the Application, including remedy.” 49 No further 

decision in that case has been rendered. While the Customer Service Standard provides for the production of 

training policies and other “documents required by [the Customer Service Standard]” upon request, 50 it does 

not appear to provide for the production of training records upon request. The decision of the HRTO to require 

production of AODA records is important because (a) it arguably goes beyond what an employer would be 

required to produce under the Customer Service Standard, and (b) it signifies how much a part of the public 

consciousness the AODA and its accessibility standards have become. 

Finally, while the timelines for compliance may seem as though compliance is far off in the future, in reality the 

time between now and the compliance deadline can pass very quickly. It can take considerable time to review 

47 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11, s. 38. 

48 McMahon v. U-Haul Co. (Canada) Ltd., 2012 HRTO 543 (CanLII). 

49 Ibid., para. 3. 

50 Accessibility Standards for Customer Service, O. Reg. 429/07, s.8(1).



and consider what the required policies, processes and plans should look like to ensure not only compliance 

with the AODA and the standards, but that the policies, practices and plans are a good fit for your 

organization’s workforce, business model, and industry.



APPENDIX A 

Questions on 2012 Customer Service Accessibility Report 51 

1. Does your organization have policies, practices and procedures on providing goods or services to 

people with disabilities? 

2. Does your organization use reasonable efforts to ensure that these policies are consistent with the 

principles of independence, dignity, integration and equality of opportunity? 

3. Do your organization's policies address the use of assistive devices by people with disabilities to 

access your organization's goods or services, or any available alternative measures that enable them 

to do so? 

4. Do your organization's policies, practices and procedures require your organization to take a person's 

disability into account when communicating with the person? 

5. Do members of the public or other third parties have access to premises that your organization owns 

or operates? *If your answer is No, skip to question 9 below. (Do not answer questions 6, 7 and 8.) 

6. Does your organization permit people with disabilities to keep their service animals with them on the 

parts of your premises that are open to the public or other third parties, except where the animal is 

excluded by law, and is this included in your policies, practices and procedures? 

7. If a service animal is excluded by law from your premises, does your organization ensure that 

alternate measures are available to enable the person to access your goods or services? 

8. Does your organization permit people with disabilities to enter the parts of your premises that are open 

to the public or other third parties with their support person, and provide notice of any fee charged for 

the support person, and is this included in your policies, practices and procedures? 

9. Does your organization post a notice at a conspicuous place on your premises, on your website, or by 

another reasonable method, of any temporary disruption in facilities or services that people with 

disabilities usually use to access your organization's goods or services, including the reason, duration 

and any alternatives available? 

10. Has your organization established and documented a process to receive and respond to feedback on 

how its goods or services are provided to people with disabilities, including actions that your 

organization will take when a complaint is received? 

11. Does your organization make information about its feedback process readily available to the public, 

including how feedback may be provided (e.g. in person, by telephone, in writing, by email, on diskette 

or otherwise)? 

12. Does your organization ensure that the following people receive training about providing your goods or 

services to people with disabilities: every person who deals with the public or other third parties on 

behalf of your organization, and every person who participates in developing your organization's 

policies, practices and procedures on providing goods or services? 

51 http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/accessibility/customerService/ report_questions.aspx, May 9, 2012.



13. Does this training include your organization's current policies, practices and procedures required 

under the Customer Service Standard and all the topics listed in section 6(2) of the standard? 

14. Does your organization have a written training policy that includes a summary of the contents of the 

training (per question 11 above) and details of when the training is to be provided, and does your 

organization keep records of the dates that training was provided and how many people were trained? 

15. Does your organization post a notice at a conspicuous place on your premises, on your website, or by 

another reasonable method, that the documents required by the Customer Service Standard are 

available upon request, and do you provide those documents in a format that takes a person's 

disability into account?

Timelines for Compliance with the IAS 



APPENDIX B 

Standard Obligation Deadline 

Customer 

Service 

The entire standard: implement policies, practices and 

procedures; create a feedback process, training of 

employees, contractors, volunteers and agents; provide 

notice of temporary disruptions in services or facilities for 

persons with disabilities. 

IAS General Policy regarding how organization achieves accessibility 

through meeting the standards in the IAS 

Private sector: January 

1, 2012 

Reporting deadline: 

December 31, 2012 

Large organizations: 

January 1, 2014 

Small organizations: 


IAS General Statement of Organizational Commitment Large organizations: 



exempt 

IAS General Create an Accessibility Plan Large organizations: 



exempt 

IAS General Self-service kiosks Large organizations: 


IAS General Train all employees and volunteers on the accessibility 

standards in the IAS as well as the Human Rights Code 

Information and 

Communication 







Feedback processes accessible Large organizations: 



January 1, 2016





Communication 


Communication 


Communication 


Communication 


Communication 

Accessible formats and communication supports Large organizations: 




Emergency procedure, plans or public safety information January 1, 2012 

Accessible websites and web content conforming to 

“World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility 

Guidelines 2.0” at Level AA 

New Web Content: 

All Web Content: 

Educational and training resources and materials in 

accessible formats and training for educators 

Producers of educational or training materials make 

accessible or conversion ready versions of textbooks upon 

request 

Make accessible or conversion-ready versions of printbased 

educational or training supplementary learning 

resources for educational or training institutions upon 

request 

Libraries of educational and training institutions must 

provide accessible or conversion-ready formats of printbased 

resources or materials upon request 




exempt 




exempt 








Employment Emergency response information January 1, 2012




Employment All other obligations: notification of availability of 

accommodation in recruitment process; notification of 

employees of policies supporting employees with 

disabilities; individual accommodation plans and processes 

for developing individual accommodation plans; return to 

work process; taking account of disabilities in performance 

management, career development, advancement and 

redeployment; and providing accessible formats and 

communication supports 





Transportation Beyond the Scope of this paper 2011 to 2017

Harcèlement Psychologique: où en 

sommes-nous? 

André Giroux 

Mai 2012 

Harcèlement Psychologique 

• Article 81.18, Loi sur les Normes du Travail 

[…] une conduite vexatoire se manifestant soit par des 

comportements, des paroles, des actes ou des gestes répétés, 

qui sont hostiles ou non désirés, laquelle porte atteinte à la dignité 

ou à l'intégrité psychologique ou physique du salarié et qui 

entraîne, pour celui-ci, un milieu de travail néfaste. 

Une seule conduite grave peut aussi constituer du harcèlement 

psychologique, si elle porte une telle atteinte et produit un effet 

nocif continu pour le salarié. 

Le concept de harcèlement psychologique 

comporte les cinq éléments suivants : 

• Trois éléments qui décrivent les manifestations caractéristiques 

du harcèlement: 

• une conduite vexatoire 

• qui se manifeste de façon répétitive et 

• de manière hostile ou non désirée 

• et deux éléments qui mettre en relief les conséquences pour la 

victime présumée : 

• qui porte atteinte a la dignité ou a l'intégrité du salarié et 

• qui entraine un milieu de travail néfaste. 



Critères d’analyse utilisés pour évaluer les 

situations de harcèlement psychologique 

• Une perspective globale 

• Le point de vue de la victime 

• L'intention malicieuse 

Situations qui ne constituent pas du harcèlement 

psychologique 

• L’exercice normal des droits de gérance 

• Les conflits au travail 

• Les contraintes de travail difficiles 

• Le stress lié au travail 

Des formes typiques de harcèlement au travail 

• l’abus de pouvoir qui se caractérise par un exercice inappropriée ou 

abusif de l’autorité par un employeur ou la personne a qui elle a été 

conféré 

Chouinard et Beaulieu c. Ressourcerie de Lévis 

• le « mobbing » 

Shermag inc. (division Lennoxville) c. Beaulieu 

• le « bullying » 

Hippodrome de Montréal c. Syndicat des employés des services de 

l’entretien de l’Hippodrome de Montréal 



Les obligations de l’employeur 

• PRÉVENTION 

L’employeur a « la responsabilité de mettre en place des moyens adéquats 

pour prévenir le harcèlement psychologique dans l’entreprise. » 

Carrier et Mittal Canada inc. 

• INTERVENTION 

L’employeur a « le devoir et l'obligation d'intervenir pour prévenir ou faire 

cesser tout harcèlement dans son entreprise, en ayant recours aux mesures 

coercitives appropriées, de nature disciplinaire ou administrative selon le cas. 

» 

Research House Inc. (Québec Recherches) c. Denis 

Des développements significatifs pour les employeurs 

• Le développement d’une procédure spéciale 

• Limites sur les plaintes multiples 

Le développement d’une procédure spéciale 

• Aéroports de Montréal et Alliance de la fonction 

publique du Canada 

« l’employeur est en droit de savoir…quels sont les reproches précis que 

le réclamant formule à son endroit, où, quand, comment, pourquoi, bref 

toutes les informations factuelles et circonstancielles nécessaires à 

l’identification de ce qui constitue le harcèlement psychologique 

reproché. » 



Le développement d’une procédure spéciale 

• Ville de Montréal et Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Municipaux de 

Montréal (SCFP) 

1. Première étape : une divulgation intégrale de la preuve avant l’audience 

a) Exposé écrit de la présumée victime 

b) Réponse écrite de l’employeur et du 

présumé harceleur 

c) Réplique de la présumée victime 

2. Seconde étape : la qualification juridique préalable du recours 

Des développements significatifs pour les employeurs 

• Limites sur les plaintes multiples 

• Articles 438 et s. de la Loi sur les accidents du travail 

et les maladies professionnelles (LATMP) 

• Article 123.16 de la Loi sur les normes du travail 

(LNT) 

Statistiques (Commission des relations du travail) 

• Le Québec comptait 252 326 employeurs en 2010. 

• 99% d’entre eux étaient assujettis a la Loi sur les 

normes du travail et 81% n’avaient que cette loi pour 

encadrer les conditions de travail au sein de leur 

entreprise. 



Statistiques 

• 40% des plaintes sont fermées sans dépôt à la 

Commission des relations du travail (CRT). 

• Le nombre des plaintes déposées à la CRT a baissé 

depuis 2008-2009 (de 264 à 181 plaintes). 

• La plupart des plaintes déposées à la CRT sont réglées 

hors cour. 

• En 2010-2011, 80.1% des plaintes ont étés réglées hors 

cour. 

Des questions à poser pour évaluer si une situation de 

conflit peut constituer du harcèlement psychologique 

• Une personne raisonnable considérerait-elle cette conduite offensante? 

• S’agit-il de plusieurs incidents ou d’une seule conduite grave? 

• Les comportements, les paroles, les actes ou les gestes reprochés sont-ils 

hostiles ou non désirés? 

• Est-ce que la conduite diminue, rabaisse ou cause une humiliation? 

• S’il s’agit d‘une seule conduite grave, celle-ci a-t-elle un effet nocif qui se 

perpétue dans le temps? 

• La conduite rend-elle le milieu de travail néfaste? 

Source: Commission des normes du travail du Québec, Harcèlement psychologique au travail : Guide d’accompagnement conçu à l’intention des gestionnaires, en ligne : Commission des normes 

du travail du Québec . 

Conseils Pratiques 

• Adoption d’une politique claire sur le harcèlement psychologique. Assurez-vous que tout le 

personnel est familiarisé avec cette politique anti harcèlement; 

• Analyse des risques et détection des dangers; 

• Prévention et maitrise de l’environnement de travail; 

• Gestion des incidents et des conflits pour en atténuer les conséquences; 

• Intervention rapide de traitement des plaintes par un mécanisme interne efficace (enquête, 

médiation, conciliation par une personne présentant des garanties d’intégrité, d’objectivité, et de 

neutralité); 

• Aide et l’assistance aux victimes; 

• Intervention appropriée et nécessaire à l’égard de l’auteur; 

• Suivi et l’évaluation du processus; 

• Consulter vos avocats. Nous sommes là pour vous assister. 

Source: Guy Poirier et Robert L. Rivest, Les nouvelles normes de protection en cas de harcèlement psychologique au travail : une approche moderne (Cowansville : Les Éditions Yvon Blais Inc., 2004). 



Merci de votre attention. 



Psychological Harassment: 

Where are we today? 

André Giroux 

May 2012 

Psychological Harassment 

• Article 81.18, An Act Respecting Labour Standards 

[…] any vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated and hostile or 

unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures, that affects 

an employee's dignity or psychological or physical integrity and that 

results in a harmful work environment for the employee. 

A single serious incidence of such behaviour that has a lasting harmful 

effect on an employee may also constitute psychological harassment. 

The concept of psychological harassment comprises the 

five following elements: 

• Three elements that describe the characteristic 

manifestations of harassment: 

• a vexatious behaviour 

• in the form of repeated and 

• hostile or unwanted conduct 

• and two elements that highlight the consequences for the 

presumed victim: 

• that affects an employee's dignity or psychological or physical 

integrity and 

• that results in a harmful work environment for the employee. 



Analytical criteria used to evaluate situations of 

psychological harassment 

• A global perspective 

• The point of view of the victim 

• Malicious intent 

Situations that do not constitute psychological 

harassment 

• The normal exercise of management rights 

• Conflicts at work 

• Difficult work constraints 

• Work related stress 

Typical forms of psychological harassment at work 

• the abuse of power characterized by an inappropriate or abusive 

exercise of authority by an employer or the person to whom it has 

conferred authority 

• « mobbing » 

• « bullying » 

Chouinard et Beaulieu c. Ressourcerie de Lévis 

Shermag inc. (division Lennoxville) c. Beaulieu 

Hippodrome de Montréal c. Syndicat des employés des services de 

l’entretien de l’Hippodrome de Montréal 



The obligations of the employer 

• PREVENTION 

The employer has « the responsibility to put in place adequate means to 

prevent psychological harassment in the company. » 

Carrier et Mittal Canada inc. 

• INTERVENTION 

The employer has « the duty and the obligation to intervene to prevent or to 

stop all harassment in its company, through the use of appropriate 

enforcement measures, of a disciplinary or administrative nature, as the case 

may be » 

Research House Inc. (Québec Recherches) c. Denis 

Developments that are significant for 

employers 

• The development of a special procedure 

• Limits on multiple complaints 

The development of a special procedure 

• Aéroports de Montréal et Alliance de la fonction 

publique du Canada 

“The employer has the right to know…what are the precise 

reproaches that the complainant claims against it; where, 

when, how, why, in short all circumstantial and factual 

information necessary for the identification of what 

constitutes the alleged psychological harassment.” 



The development of a special procedure 

• Ville de Montréal et Syndicat des Fonctionnaires 

Municipaux de Montréal (SCFP) 

1. First step: a full disclosure of evidence before the hearing 

a) Written statement of the alleged victim 

b) Written response by the employer and the alleged harasser 

c) Reply of the alleged victim 

2. Second step: the prior legal characterization of the recourse 

Developments that are significant for employers 

• Limits on multiple complaints 

• Articles 438 et ff. of An Act Respecting Industrial 

Accidents and Occupational Diseases (AIAOD) 

• Article 123.16 of An Act Respecting Labour Standards 

(ALS). 

Statistics (Commission des relations du travail) 

• In 2010, there were 252 326 employers in Québec. 

• 99% of them were subject to An Act Respecting Labour 

Standards and 81% had only this law to regulate the 

working conditions in their business. 



Statistics 

• 40% of complaints are closed without being filed with 

the Commission des relations du travail (CRT). 

• The number of complaints filed at the CRT has 

decreased since 2008-2009 (from 264 to 181 

complaints). 

• Most complaints filed at the CRT are settled out of court. 

• In 2010-2011, 80.1% of the complaints were settled out 

of court. 

Questions to ask yourself when evaluating whether a 

situation of conflict constitutes psychological harassment 

• Would a reasonable person consider this conduct offensive? 

• Does it involve multiple incidents or a single serious incident? 

• Are the behaviors, words, actions or gestures in question hostile or unwanted? 

• Does the conduct demean, belittle or cause humiliation? 

• If it is a single serious conduct, does it have a harmful effect that continues over 

time? 

• Does the conduct make the work environment harmful? 

Source: Commission des normes du travail du Québec, Harcèlement psychologique au travail : Guide 

d’accompagnement conçu à l’intention des gestionnaires, en ligne : Commission des normes du travail du 

Québec . 

Practical Advice 

• Adoption of a clear policy on psychological harassment. Make sure that all personnel 

are familiar with this anti-harassment policy; 

• Analysis of the risks and detection of the dangers; 

• Prevention and mastery of the work environment; 

• Management of incidents and conflicts to diminish their consequences; 

• Rapid response to complaints through an efficient internal mechanism (inquiry, 

mediation, conciliation by a person presenting garanties of integrity, objectivity, and 

neutrality); 

• Aid and assistance to victims; 

• Appropriate and necessary intervention with regard to the author; 

• Follow-up and evaluation of the process; 

• Consult your lawyers. We are here to assist you. 

Source: Guy Poirier et Robert L. Rivest, Les nouvelles normes de protection en cas de harcèlement psychologique au travail : une approche moderne (Cowansville : Les Éditions Yvon Blais Inc., 2004). 



Thank you for your attention. 



Les limites de l’obligation d’accommodement 

Davis s.e.n.c.r.l. - Conférence sur le droit de l’emploi et du travail 

Introduction 

Montréal, Québec | Le 24 mai 2012 


La plupart des employeurs sont très conscients de 

la nécessité d’éviter la discrimination et 

d’accommoder leurs employés jusqu’au point de la 

contrainte excessive. 

Ce matin nous allons discuter brièvement : 

• des principes de base concernant l’obligation 

d’accommodement; et 

• de quelques exemples récents concernant 

l’obligation d’accommodement. 



La législation applicable en matière de droits de la 

personne 

• La législation en matière de droits de la personne existe 

au niveau fédéral et dans chaque province et territoire, y 

compris le Québec. 

• Cette législation interdit aux employeurs de : 

• refuser d’embaucher ou de continuer d’employer une 

personne; ou 

• faire preuve de discrimination envers une personne 

relativement à son emploi ou aux modalités de son emploi; 

en se fondant sur certains motifs protégés. 

L’obligation d’accommodement de l’employeur 

• Une fois que l’employé a établi qu’il a été victime de 

discrimination, le fardeau reposera alors sur l’employeur 

d’établir que la règle ou la norme de travail en question 

est fondée sur une exigence professionnelle justifiée 

(EPJ). 

• Comme nous le savons tous, dans l’affaire Meiorin, la 

Cour Suprême du Canada a établi un test à trois étapes 

pour démontrer une EPJ : 

1. La norme a été adoptée dans un but rationnellement lié 

à l’exécution du travail en cause; 

2. La norme a été adoptée en croyant sincèrement qu’elle 

était nécessaire pour réaliser ce but légitime lié au 

travail; 

3. La norme est raisonnablement nécessaire pour réaliser 

ce but légitime lié au travail, et il n’est pas possible 

d’accommoder l’employé sans que l’employeur subisse 

une contrainte excessive. 



La contrainte excessive 

• Un certain niveau de contrainte est acceptable; ce n’est 

que la contrainte excessive qui satisfera au test. 

• Si la bonne marche de l’entreprise est entravée de 

façon excessive ou si l’employé est incapable de fournir 

sa prestation de travail dans un avenir raisonnablement 

prévisible, le critère de la contrainte excessive sera 

établi (affaire Hydro-Québec). 

L’obligation d’aider de l’employé 

• L’employé est tenu d’aider et de participer activement 

dans le processus d’accommodement. 

• Généralement, l’employé doit : 

• demander l’accommodement; 

• fournir des renseignements raisonnables; 

• subir des traitements raisonnables; et 

• faciliter l’accommodement raisonnable. 

Exemple 1 : malhonnêteté 

• Un employé avec 20 ans d’ancienneté a été congédié 

après avoir volé 910$ et a été réintégré conformément à 

une entente de « dernière chance » 

• L’employé a menti sur son état de santé afin de retarder 

son retour au travail – il a été congédié à nouveau 

• Le syndicat soutenait que la malhonnêteté de l’employé 

était justifiée par un trouble mental – l’employé était 

atteint d’un trouble cognitif 

• Est-ce que l’employeur a l’obligation d’accommodement? 



Titre- OPESU c. Ontario (Liquor Control Board) 

(Ontario - Commission de règlement des griefs, 2011) 

• Non; bien que l’employé soufrait d’un trouble 

d’adaptation, cela ne justifiait pas une inconduite 

• L’arbitre a accepté la preuve médicale de l’employeur 

démontrant que l’employé n’était pas atteint d’un trouble 

cognitif 

• L’employé avait la capacité de choisir d’agir autrement 

• Démontre l’importance d’une preuve médicale 

suffisante 

Exemple 2 : comportement inapproprié 

• L’employé était atteint d’un trouble bipolaire 

• L’employeur a permis des horaires flexibles, des pauses, 

le travail à la maison et des tâches restructurées 

• Pendant ses phases maniaques, l’employé devenait 

agressif, argumentatif et perturbateur 

• L’employé a été placé en congé de maladie payé et tenu 

de subir des traitements et des évaluations 

• S’agit-il d’un manquement à l’obligation 

d’accommodement? 

Yukon HRC c. Yukon (C.A., 2010) 

• Non; les actions de l’employeur n’étaient pas basées 

sur des stéréotypes 

• L’employeur avait accommodé l’employé avec succès 

pendant 6 ans 

• L’employeur avait tenté d’évaluer si les actions de 

l’employé pouvaient être attribuées à son état de santé 

• Confirme le droit général de demander des 

renseignements médicaux 



Exemple 3 : promotion non méritée 

• L’employé a subi des blessures au travail; plusieurs 

tentatives d’accommodement 

• L’employé a demandé le poste de chef d’équipe; 

l’employeur a refusé 

• L’employé a refusé un poste alternatif, puis a pris sa 

retraite et a déposé une plainte 

• Est-ce que l’employeur avait l’obligation de lui donner la 

promotion? 

Ellis c. General Motors (OHRT, 2011) 

• Non; l’employeur n’avait pas d’obligation d’offrir une 

promotion non méritée 

• L’obligation d’accommodement n’exige pas que 

l’employeur donne un poste à un employé auquel il 

n’aurait autrement pas droit 

• Faire ainsi étendrait l’obligation d’accommodement audelà 

des limites du traitement équitable 

Lieu de travail préféré 

• Une employée lesbienne travaillait comme agente des 

services correctionnels et refusait d’effectuer des fouilles 

à nu de femmes délinquantes 

• L’employée voulait être accommodée en gardant son 

poste actuel dans l’établissement réservé aux femmes 

• L’employeur a proposé un accommodement dans un 

établissement réservé aux hommes où les fouilles à nu de 

femmes n’étaient pas requises 

• Est-ce que la proposition de l’employeur était 

raisonnable? 



OPSEU c. Ontario 

(Ontario. Commission de règlement des griefs, 2011) 

• Oui; le poste offert était raisonnable 

• L’employée n’avait pas droit à son accommodement 

préféré ou à celui qui était le plus approprié 

• L’employeur n’est pas tenu de prendre en considération 

les activités non professionnelles de l’employé (son poste 

au sein d’un syndicat ou d’un comité) lors de la prise de 

décision concernant l’accommodement 

Les points clés 

• L’employé possède le fardeau initial de démontrer qu’il ou 

elle a droit à l’accommodement. 

• L’obligation d’accommodement exige que les employeurs 

évaluent individuellement et gèrent les circonstances de 

chaque employé pour déterminer s’il/elle peut être 

accommodé jusqu’au point de la contrainte excessive. 


• L’employé a le droit à l’accommodement raisonnable. 

• L’employé n’a pas le droit à l’accommodement le plus 

approprié ou parfait. 

• L’employé n’a pas le droit d’imposer l’accommodement 

qu’il ou elle acceptera. 




• L’employé a l’obligation d’accepter l’accommodement 

raisonnable, même s’il ne s’agit pas de sa solution 

préférée ou idéale. 

• Bien que les décisions que nous avons discutées 

aujourd’hui sont encourageantes, rappelez-vous que 

chaque cas est un cas d’espèce et que les décisions 

d’accommodement doivent être prises avec soin. 

Questions? 



Limits on the Duty to Accommodate 

Introduction 

Davis LLP Employment and Labour Conference 

May 24, 2012 


Most employers are well aware of the need to avoid 

discrimination and accommodate employees to the 

point of undue hardship. 

This morning we will briefly discuss: 

• basic principles regarding the duty to accommodate; 

and 

• recent examples of limits on the duty to accommodate. 



Human Rights Legislation 

• Human rights legislation exists federally and in all 

provinces and territories, including Quebec. 

• It prohibits employers from: 

• refusing to employ or refusing to continue to employ 

any person; or 

• discriminating against any person with regard to 

employment or any term or condition of employment; 

based on certain protected grounds. 

The Employer’s Duty to Accommodate 

• Once the employee establishes discrimination, the onus 

shifts to the employer to establish that the work rule or 

standard in question is based on a bona fide 

occupational requirement (BFOR). 

• As we all know, in a case called Meiorin, the Supreme 

Court of Canada set out a three-part test for 

establishing a BFOR: 

Three-Part Test for Establishing a BFOR: 

1. the standard was adopted for a purpose rationally 

connected to job performance; 

2. the standard was adopted in a good faith belief that it 

was necessary to fulfil a legitimate work-related 

purpose; and 

3. the standard is reasonably necessary to the 

accomplishment of the legitimate work-related purpose 

and the employee cannot be accommodated without 

undue hardship. 



Undue Hardship 

• Some hardship is acceptable; it is only undue hardship 

that satisfies the test. 

• If the proper operation of the business is excessively 

hampered or the employee is unable to work for the 

reasonably foreseeable future, the standard of undue 

hardship will be met (Hydro-Quebec decision). 

The Employee’s Duty to Assist 

• The employee is required to assist and actively 

participate in the accommodation process. 

• Generally, the employee must: 

• request accommodation; 

• provide reasonable information; 

• undergo reasonable treatment; and 

• facilitate reasonable accommodation. 

Example 1: Dishonesty 

• 20 year employee dismissed after stealing $910 and 

reinstated under last chance agreement 

• employee lied about having medical condition to delay 

return to work – dismissed again 

• union argued dishonesty was due to mental illness – 

employee was “cognitively impaired” 

• does the employer have to accommodate? 



OPESU v. Ontario (Liquor Control Board) 

(Ont. Grievance Settlement Board, 2011) 

• no; although employee had adjustment disorder, it was 

not cause of misconduct 

• arbitrator accepted employer’s medical evidence that 

employee not cognitively impaired 

• employee had ability to choose to act otherwise 

• shows importance of adequate medical evidence 

Example 2: Inappropriate Behaviour 

• employee had bipolar disorder 

• employer permitted flexible hours and breaks, work 

from home and restructured tasks 

• during manic phase, employee became aggressive, 

argumentative and disruptive 

• employee placed on paid sick leave and required to 

obtain treatment and assessment 

• breach of duty to accommodate? 

Yukon HRC v. Yukon (C.A., 2010) 

• no; employer’s actions not based on stereotypes 

• had successfully accommodated for 6 years 

• employer attempting to assess whether employee’s 

actions due to medical condition 

• confirms general right to seek medical information 



Example 3: Unearned Promotion 

• employee suffered on the job injury; various attempts to 

accommodate 

• employee requested group leader position; employer 

declined 

• employee refused alternative position, then retired and 

filed complaint 

• was employer obliged to promote? 

Ellis v. General Motors (OHRT, 2011) 

• no; employer not obliged to offer undeserved promotion 

• duty to accommodate does not require employer to 

promote employee to position employee not otherwise 

entitled to 

• doing so would extend duty to accommodate beyond 

ensuring equal treatment 

Example 4: Preferred Work Location 

• employee was lesbian correctional officer who refused to 

conduct strip searches on female offenders 

• employee wanted to be accommodated in current position 

at all-female facility 

• employer offered accommodation at all-male facility, 

where female searches not required 

• was employer’s offer reasonable? 



OPSEU v. Ontario 

(Ont. Grievance Settlement Board, 2011) 

• yes; position offered was reasonable 

• employee not entitled to preferred or most appropriate 

accommodation 

• employer not required to consider employee’s non-work 

activities (union executive, committee membership) in 

making accommodation decision 

Key Points 

• The employee bears the initial burden of showing that he 

or she is entitled to accommodation. 

• The duty to accommodate requires employers to 

individually assess and manage each employee’s 

circumstances to determine if the employee can be 

accommodated to the point of undue hardship. 

Key Points 

• The employee is entitled to reasonable accommodation. 

• The employee is not entitled to the most appropriate or 

perfect accommodation. 

• The employee is not entitled to dictate the accommodation 

that he or she will accept. 



Key Points 

• The employee has a duty to accept reasonable 

accommodation, even if it is not the employee’s preferred 

or ideal solution. 

• While the cases we have discussed today are 

encouraging, remember that each case turns on its own 

facts and accommodation decisions should be made very 

carefully. 

Questions? 





RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND LIMITS 

ON THE DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE 

BY WENDY-ANNE BERKENBOSCH 

MAY 2012

1. Introduction 



By this point in time, it is presumed that most employers are familiar with the need to avoid discrimination and 

to reasonably accommodate disabled employees to the point of undue hardship. When it comes to actually 

applying the duty to accommodate, however, it can be difficult to gauge what is required in order to satisfy the 

stringent standards applied by labour arbitrators, human rights panels and courts. 

While there are many protected grounds of discrimination, this paper will provide a brief analysis of the basic 

principles underlying the duty to accommodate employees with disabilities, followed by a survey of recent 

cases of interest on the duty to accommodate more generally. 

2. Human Rights Legislation 

In Canada, the primary source of the duty to accommodate is human rights legislation. Such legislation exists 

in Canada at the federal level and in all the provincial and territorial jurisdictions. 

Section 10 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms states: 

Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and 

freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, 

sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, 

language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to 

palliate a handicap. 

Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of 

nullifying or impairing such right. 

Pursuant to section 10.1, no one may harass a person on the basis of any ground mentioned in section 10. 

Section 16 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms states: 

No one may practise discrimination in respect of the hiring, apprenticeship, duration of the 

probationary period, vocational training, promotion, transfer, displacement, laying-off, 

suspension, dismissal or conditions of employment of a person or in the establishment of 

categories or classes of employment. 

Although the term “employment” is rarely defined in human rights legislation, Canadian courts have given 

human rights legislation a broad, liberal and purposive interpretation. In general, an employment relationship 

exists when an individual earns their livelihood from the relationship. It has also been held that a person is an 

employer where the person controls, at least to some extent, the ability of a person to earn a livelihood. 

3. The Discrimination Threshold 

The duty to accommodate is triggered once it is determined that there is an established case of prohibited 

discrimination, either because of a discriminatory workplace standard or practice or with respect to the 

treatment of a specific employee. 

The classic definition of discrimination was set out in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1 and refined 

in Law v. Canada: 

1 [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143.



… First, does the impugned law (a) draw a formal distinction between the claimant and others 

on the basis of one or more personal characteristics, or (b) fail to take into account the 

claimant’s already disadvantaged position within Canadian society resulting in substantively 

differential treatment between the claimant and others on the basis of one or more personal 

characteristics? If so, there is differential treatment for the purpose of s. 15(1). Second, was 

the claimant subject to differential treatment on the basis of one or more of the enumerated 

and analogous grounds? And third, does the differential treatment discriminate in a 

substantive sense, bringing into play the purpose of s. 15(1) of the Charter in remedying such 

ills as prejudice, stereotyping, and historical disadvantage. The second and third inquiries are 

concerned with whether the differential treatment constitutes discrimination in the substantive 

sense intended by s. 15(1). 2 

Based on the foregoing, there are four key factors relevant to substantive discrimination: (1) pre-existing 

disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice or vulnerability experienced by the individual or group at issue; (2) 

correspondence, or lack thereof, between the ground or grounds on which the claim is based and the actual 

need, capacity or circumstances of the complainant or others; (3) the ameliorative purposive effect of the 

impugned law or situation on a more disadvantaged person or group; and (4) the nature and scope of the 

interest affected by the impugned law or rule. Proof of intention to discriminate is not required. 

For employers in Ontario, standards relating to discrimination in employment are set out in the Human Rights 

Code. Both physical disability and mental disability are broadly defined. While in most cases, employees 

have little difficulty in establishing disability, not every absence from work for a medical reason will constitute a 

physical disability for the purposes of human rights legislation. Among the factors commonly taken into 

account in determining whether a given illness or medical condition amounts to a disability are whether the 

condition entails a certain measure of severity, permanence and persistence. 

4. The Employer’s Duty to Accommodate 

Once a “prima facie” case of discrimination has been made out, the onus shifts to the employer to establish 

that the work rule or standard that has led to the discrimination is a bona fide occupational requirement 

(“BFOR”). 

(a) Bona Fide Occupational Requirement 

The three step test for establishing a BFOR was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia 

(Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ 

Union, (“Meiorin”). 3 To meet the test, the employer must satisfy the following three subtests: 

1. the employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of 

the job; 

2. the employer adopted the standard in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to 

fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and 

3. the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate work-related 

purpose – to show that the standard is reasonably necessary, the employer must prove that it 

is impossible to accommodate individual employees sharing the characteristics of the 

claimant without imposing undue hardship upon the employer. 

2 [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497 at para. 39. 

3 [1999] 3 S.C.R 3.



Importantly, there is both a procedural and a substantive element to the third part of the Meiorin test. In 

Meiorin, Chief Justice McLachlin suggested that at this stage of the test, it may be useful to consider 

separately, first, the procedure, if any, that was adopted to assess the issue of accommodation and, second, 

the substantive content of either a more accommodating standard which was offered or alternatively the 

employer’s reasons for not offering any such standard. 4 Where an employer fails to properly consider whether 

an employee can be accommodated, it will be challenging for that employer to satisfy the Meiorin test. 

(b) Undue Hardship 

The third element of the Meiorin test is also the most difficult to meet. It requires the employer to demonstrate 

that it cannot accommodate the employee without experiencing undue hardship. The use of the term “undue” 

implies that more than mere negligible effort is required to satisfy the duty to accommodate. Some hardship is 

acceptable; it is only undue hardship that satisfies the test. 5 

Factors to be considered in assessing undue hardship include financial cost, disruption of a collective 

agreement, problems of morale of other employees, interchangeability of the workforce and facilities, size of 

the employer’s operations and safety. 6 Subsequent courts have adopted the above factors, with minor 

variations. In Meiorin, for example, Chief Justice McLachlin noted that courts and tribunals should be sensitive 

to the various ways in which individual capabilities may be accommodated and parties should be “innovative 

yet practical” in considering how this can be achieved. She went on to identify the following questions that may 

be asked in the course of this analysis: 

A. Has the employer investigated alternative approaches that do not have a discriminatory effect 

such as individual testing against a more individually sensitive standard? 

B. If alternative standards were investigated and found to be capable of fulfilling the employer’s 

purpose, why were they not implemented? 

C. Is it necessary to have all employees meet the single standard for the employer to accomplish 

its legitimate purpose or could standards reflective of group or individual differences and 

capabilities be established? 

D. Is there a way to do the job that is less discriminatory while still accomplishing the employer’s 

legitimate purpose? 

E. Is the standard properly designed to ensure that the desired qualification is met without 

placing an undue burden on those to whom the standard applies? 

F. Have other parties who are obliged to assist in the search for possible accommodation fulfilled 

their roles? 7 

In British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights, Chief 

Justice McLachlin further elaborated on the third aspect of the test, stating: 

4 Ibid at para. 66. 

5 Central Okanagan School District v. Renaud, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970. 

6 Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489. 

7 Meiorin, supra at paras. 64-65.



…In order to prove that its standard is ‘reasonably necessary’, the defendant always bears the 

burden of demonstrating that the standard incorporates every possible accommodation to the 

point of undue hardship, whether that hardship takes the form of impossibility, serious risk or 

excessive cost. 8 

Based on the foregoing, it becomes clear that the undue hardship standard is onerous, particularly in light of 

Chief Justice McLachlin’s use of the word “impossibility”. In a recent decision, however, the Supreme Court of 

Canada has clarified the impossibility standard. 

In Hydro-Quebec v. Syndicat des employe-e-s des techniques professionelles, 9 a unionized employee 

exhibited several physical and mental problems which resulted in absences of 960 days over the course of 

seven-and-a-half years of work. The employer had endeavoured to adapt the employee’s working situation so 

as to accommodate her and allow her to continue her employment. After the employee’s doctor made the 

recommendation that she cease work for an indefinite period and the employer’s own psychiatric assessment 

indicated that the employee would not be able to continue working without similar ongoing absences, the 

employer terminated her employment. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court of Canada, which took the 

opportunity to clarify the proper approach to be used in such circumstances. 

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the duty to accommodate does not vitiate the fundamental 

underpinnings of the employment relationship. Even where an employer has a duty to accommodate, the 

employee must still fulfill his or her obligation to provide work. The test is not whether it is impossible for the 

employer to accommodate the employee, nor is it total unfitness for work in the foreseeable future; rather, if 

the employer can show that the proper operation of the business is hampered excessively or that the 

employee will be unable to work for the reasonably foreseeable future, despite attempts to accommodate, 

then the test of undue hardship will be met. 10 

Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hydro-Quebec, there have been numerous cases that 

have considered the scope of the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. The Ontario Arbitration 

Board determined that that a hereditary back injury sustained by a hospital porter did not require 

accommodation because the risk of injury to her and to patients coupled with the cost to her employer resulted 

in undue hardship. 11 For an employee teleworking from home who could no longer be accommodated when 

her workload became confidential, the Canada Public Service Labour Relations Board held that the duty to 

accommodate does not extend so far as to require an employer to create a position “out of bits and pieces 

without taking operational requirements into consideration”. 12 

A change in the employer’s financial status will factor into undue hardship analysis. An employee that had 

been accommodated by being assigned light duties was terminated because an overall reduction in the 

amount of available work no longer justified having an employee solely perform light duties. The arbitrator 

8 [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868 at para. 32. 

9 Hydro-Quebec v. Syndicat des employe-e-s des techniques professionelles, 2008 SCC 43 (“Hydro-Quebec”) 

10 Ibid at paras. 15-19. 

11 C.U.P.E., Local 1487 v. Scarborough Hospital [2009] O.L.A.A. No. 650 (Ontario, Etherington). 

12 LL v. Treasury Board (Statistics Canada) [2009] C.P.S.L.R.B. No. 113 (Canada, Nadeau).



concluded that the costs of continuing to accommodate the grievor were of a totally different magnitude than 

when the modified work was initially offered, such that the modified work had become undue hardship. 13 

Finally, it should also be noted that some jurisdictions have limited the factors that are relevant to undue 

hardship. For example, subs. 17(2) of the Ontario Human Rights Code states that only cost, outside sources 

of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements can be considered. 14 

5. The Employee’s Duty to Assist in the Accommodation Process 

Although it would seem that the majority of the duty to accommodate rests upon the employer’s shoulders, the 

employee also has a duty to assist in the process. 

In Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that 

individuals seeking accommodation must assist and actively participate in the accommodation process. The 

employee must bring to the employer’s attention the facts relating to the discrimination and must facilitate the 

implementation of reasonable proposals for accommodation. While the employee is not charged with the 

primary responsibility of determining the best solution, the Supreme Court expressly stated: 

…When an employer has initiated a proposal that is reasonable and would, if implemented, 

fulfil the duty to accommodate, the complainant has a duty to facilitate the implementation of 

the proposal. If failure to take reasonable steps on the part of the complainant causes the 

proposal to founder, the complaint will be dismissed. The other aspect of this duty is the 

obligation to accept reasonable accommodation. This is the aspect referred to by McIntyre J. 

in O’Malley. The complainant cannot expect a perfect solution. If a proposal that would be 

reasonable in all the circumstances is turned down, the employer’s duty is discharged. 15 

More recently, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal affirmed that an employee who is seeking accommodation 

has a reciprocal duty to cooperate with the employer in determining what kinds of modifications or 

accommodations might be necessary to permit the employee to participate in the workplace. In Baber v. York 

Region District School Board, 16 a secondary school teacher was fired for her ongoing refusal to provide her 

employer with medical information to support her absence from work and/or to assist her employer to return 

her to work. The teacher had been diagnosed with anxiety disorder, depressive disorder and chronic 

lymphocytic leukemia. However, the most recent medical information provided to her employer indicated that 

she was capable of performing her full teaching duties. Nevertheless, she insisted that she was unable to 

return to work. She also sought a deferral of the employer’s teacher performance appraisal, arguing she was 

incapable of doing so because of illness. The school board gave her three options: 

• apply for long term disability benefits with supporting medical documentation; 

• consent to a Registered Nurse employed by the school board contacting her doctor to clarify whether 

she was able to work as a teacher and submit to a teacher performance appraisal; or 

13 Retail Wholesale Union, Local 517 v. Maersk Distribution Canada Inc. [2010] A.G.A.A. No. 4 (Alberta, 

Sims). 

14 R.S.O. 1990, c. H-19. 

15 Central Okanagan School District v. Renaud, supra at para. 44. 

16 2011 HRTO 213 (CanLII), request for reconsideration denied 2011 HRTO 1094 (CanLII).



• undergo an independent medical examination to determine whether or not she was fit to work 

(including participation in the teacher performance appraisal), with or without accommodations. 

Instead, the teacher provided the school board notes from her family doctor and treating psychiatrist that 

recommended that she be given a teacher-librarian position but did not identify her medical restrictions and 

limitations or identify the accommodations that she required. The school board – with the support of the 

teacher’s union – repeatedly requested further medical documentation. Finally, the teacher was invited to 

suggest other options for providing medical information to substantiate her ongoing absence from work. The 

teacher insisted that she had already provided adequate medical information. The school board disagreed, 

placing her on an unpaid leave of absence and giving her a deadline to select an option for providing sufficient 

medical information, failing which her employment would be terminated. The teacher did not select an option 

and did not submit any further medical information, so the school board terminated her employment. 

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal relied on the Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud case as 

authority for the proposition that, “An employee who seeks workplace accommodation has a duty to cooperate 

in the accommodation process by providing her employer with a reasonable amount of information 

about her physical and/or mental work restrictions and disability-related needs so that the employer can 

assess whether and how the employee’s needs may be accommodated without undue hardship.” The Tribunal 

concluded that the teacher’s mere assertion that she was medically unable to submit to a teacher 

performance appraisal was not evidence of that fact, such that the teacher had failed to establish any disability 

precluding her from submitting to such an appraisal and the school board’s substantive accommodation duty 

therefore was not triggered. Similarly, the Tribunal rejected the mere assertion that the teacher required a 

teacher-librarian position: 

It is not sufficient for a medical certificate to merely state that an employee would benefit from 

placement in a particular job. The medical practitioner’s role in the accommodation process is 

not to identify the specific job in which an employee is to be accommodated but rather to 

identify the employee’s disability-related needs and restrictions. It is then up to the employer, 

who has the ultimate responsibility for accommodation in the workplace, to take that basic 

information and to determine whether and how the applicant’s disability-related needs might 

be accommodated up to the point of undue hardship. 

The Tribunal rejected the teacher’s claim that the school board breached its duty to accommodate her when it 

terminated her employment rather than placing her in the teacher-librarian position or even just continuing to 

tolerate her absence from work: 

The duty to accommodate does not give employees permission to refuse to provide their 

employers with information about their ability to work with or without restrictions where there is 

a legitimate question about that, as was the case here. Nor does the duty to accommodate 

require an employer to tolerate an employee’s ongoing unsubstantiated absence from work. 

… The applicant in this case knew that her employer required additional medical 

documentation either substantiating her ongoing absence from work or facilitating her return 

to work with or without accommodation, failing which her employment would be terminated. 

She consistently refused to provide the necessary medical information. The respondent did 

not breach its duty to accommodate the applicant when it terminated her employment for her 

refusal in that regard. 

The employee’s duty to assist in the accommodation process may also include obligations to mitigate or to 

undergo reasonable treatment. For example, in Re Treasury Board (Agriculture Canada) and Berard, which 

involved the accommodation of an employee suffering from multiple sclerosis, the Public Service Staff



Relations Board held that “an employee with a disability must, in so far as possible, act so as to mitigate the 

changes and accommodations that his or her disability might require of the employer”. 17 

In another case, the arbitrator found that the employer had failed to accommodate a diabetic employee, but 

declined to award compensation because the arbitrator was not satisfied that the grievor took the necessary 

precautions to control his health problem, nor did the grievor cooperate sufficiently in providing information. 18 

Similar principles have been applied in cases involving substance abuse. In Re Ottawa Civic Hospital and 

O.N.A, an employee was dismissed after excessive absenteeism due to substance abuse and her grievance 

was dismissed. The arbitrator specifically noted that the employee’s disability was not totally beyond her 

control and her failure to seek treatment at an earlier date was a factor to be considered: 

In the context of a disability the extent of which can be mitigated by proper care, the duty of a 

complainant to do her part includes taking reasonable steps to obtain treatment. While 

recognizing denial is a barrier to recovery from addiction, we believe the grievor bears some 

responsibility for not seeking help in response to her supervisor’s repeated counselling. 19 

6. The Union’s Duty in the Accommodation Process 

While the duties of the employer and employee would seem to be the most important in the accommodation 

process, the union also has a duty to assist with the process. As noted by the Supreme Court in Central 

Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, the duty to accommodate is a multi-party process. The Supreme 

Court held that, like employers and employees, unions also have a responsibility to accommodate those 

employees that have triggered the duty to accommodate. Two ways in which a union may fail in its duty to 

accommodate are if it impedes reasonable accommodation attempted by the employer or if it enters into a 

collective agreement in which the duty to accommodate is breached. 

The union’s duty to accommodate arises if the union is a party to the discrimination, which can happen in two 

ways. First, the union may cause or contribute to the discrimination in the first instance by participating in the 

formulation of a work rule that has a discriminatory effect on an employee (e.g., a collective agreement 

provision or a letter of understanding that is discriminatory). In such a case, the union is an equal party to the 

discrimination and bears the same responsibilities as the employer in terms of accommodation. 

Second, even if the union did not participate in the formulation or application of a discriminatory work rule, it 

may still be liable if it impedes the employer’s reasonable efforts to accommodate. For example, if a 

reasonable accommodation option can only be implemented with the union’s support and the union declines to 

cooperate, then the union will become a party to the discrimination and will be obliged to participate in the duty 

to accommodate. It should be noted, however, that according to the Supreme Court of Canada, the union’s 

duty arises only where its involvement is necessary and no other alternative resolution of the matter can 

reasonably be found. 

The challenge for employers, however, is that arbitral case law following the decision in Central Okanagan 

School District No. 23 v. Renaud has not been entirely consistent. 

17 (1993), 35 L.A.C. (4 th ) 172 (P.S.S.R.B.). 

18 Re Thunder Bay (City) and S.E.I.U., Local 268 (1992), 27 L.A.C. (4 th ) 192 (Ontario, Joyce). 

19 (1995) 48 L.A.C. (4 th ) 388 (Ontario, Brown) at para. 58. See also Re Alcan Rolled Products Co. and 

U.S.W.A., Local 343 (1996), 56 L.A.C. (4 th ) 187 (Ontario, Grey).



Some arbitrators have taken a very limited approach to the roles and responsibilities of the union, concluding 

that the union is only entitled to be involved if it is a party to the discrimination (e.g., if it was involved in the 

formulation of a discriminatory work rule or if its cooperation is required to implement an accommodation 

proposal). For example, one B.C. arbitrator has stated that there is no general obligation on an employer to 

involve the union in its search for accommodation even if as a practical matter it makes sense to do so. The 

arbitrator held that where neither of the two situations described in Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. 

Renaud exists, there is no legal principle requiring the employer to involve the union. 20 

An Ontario arbitrator reached the same conclusion in National Steel Car Ltd. v. U.S.A., Local 7135. 21 In that 

case, the union filed a grievance regarding the employer’s failure to provide union representation during, 

among other things, return to work meetings. The parties eventually agreed that where an employee seeks 

accommodation, the employee will be advised that “the union must and will be notified and involved, as 

appropriate, pursuant to their legal obligations”. An issue arose with respect to implementation of this 

agreement, as the employer took the position that it was only required to involve the union where there was a 

“legal obligation” to do so. The arbitrator held that the union had no general right to be present at all meetings, 

except to the extent that such a right could be found in the collective agreement or the “external law”. The 

“external law” imposes an obligation on the union where the union is a party to the discrimination complained 

of or where the union’s involvement is necessary to reach an effective accommodation solution. In such 

cases, the union is entitled to be present; however, the union does not have a general right to be present in all 

cases. 

Other arbitrators, however, have concluded that the union is entitled to be involved in the accommodation 

process. For example, in Re Mount Sinai Hospital and O.N.A., 22 an Ontario arbitration panel concluded that 

the employer failed to make a concerted effort to review with the employee and the union the sorts of positions 

that the employee could perform, with or without modification. While the employer held internal discussions, 

that was not sufficient as it did not address the multi-party nature of the inquiry into reasonable 

accommodation. The panel held that the employer carried the primary responsibility to seriously canvass with 

the union possibilities for accommodation. 

Similarly, in Re Inmet Mining Corp. v. U.S.A., Local 4464, 23 another Ontario arbitrator concluded that the 

union’s involvement in the accommodation process is imperative, as a matter of fact and law. In this case, the 

employee was disabled and could not perform his work as a millwright. The union argued that the employer 

failed to consider other possible positions. The arbitrator held that those positions fell within the definition of 

“work rules” in Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud. The arbitrator stated: “The Union has the 

right, and the parties share the responsibility, to consider whether those “work rules” are an unacceptable 

barrier to the continued employment of the grievor”. The duty to accommodate is a joint union-employer 

responsibility and in this case, one meeting between the employer, the employee and the union was found to 

be insufficient. 

Ontario arbitrators have also held that the duty to accommodate requires a dialogue to determine if the 

employee can be accommodated. While it is not incumbent upon the union to determine how accommodation 

is to take place, without input into the process, appropriate accommodation may not be made and needless 

time and energy expended. 24 The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Central Okanagan School District 

20 Providence Health Care v. Hospital Employees’ Union, [2001] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 135 (B.C., Jackson). 

21 [2005] O.L.A.A. No. 58 (Ontario, McLaren). 

22 [1997] O.L.A.A. No. 492 (Ontario, Emrich). 

23 [1998] O.L.A.A. No. 117 (Ontario, Harris). 

24 Maple Leaf Foods Inc. v. U.F.C.W., [1996] O.L.A.A. No. 35 (Ontario., Kirkwood).



No. 23 v. Renaud recognizes that the accommodation of employees in a unionized environment is a matter in 

which both parties to the collective agreement have an interest. The duty to accommodate is a cooperative 

one, and the employer must sit down with the union to discuss possible accommodation solutions. 25 

Perhaps one of the strongest statements as to union participation in the process was made in Commercial 

Bakeries Corp. v. Retail Wholesale Canada, 26 in which the arbitrator concluded as follows: 

…it is my view that the Union has the right to represent members in their dealings with the 

employer in cases where an employee is injured or disabled and there are attempts to 

accommodate the employee with modified work, and where there is any kind of adjustment 

being made with respect to the employee’s hours of work and working conditions, including 

remuneration. Also, the Union is entitled to represent employees when an issue arises 

concerning the employee’s return to work. The basis of my decision derives from both the 

Union’s exclusive right to represent employees as well as its duty under Human Rights 

legislation concerning an employee’s right to be accommodated because of disability. 

The arbitrator noted the importance of the union’s role as the sole collective bargaining agent for all 

employees, thereby eliminating any room for private negotiations between the employer and the employee. 

For the employer to claim that it has the right to deal with individual employees without the presence of the 

union is tantamount to individual bargaining and denies the employee the substantive right of union 

representation. The arbitrator also noted that, pursuant to Central Alberta Okanagan District No. 23 v. 

Renaud, the union may be liable for breach of the duty to accommodate. If the union is not present when 

accommodation solutions are being discussed, the union may not be able to comply with its duties under 

human rights law. The arbitrator concluded: 

In effect, the Union’s duty is both to ensure that an injured worker is not being discriminated 

against because of his/her injury and also to ensure the accommodation of the employee is 

reasonable in the circumstances. Further, the Union has a responsibility to ensure that an 

injured employee can return to useful employment and must cooperate fully in finding him/her 

accommodation. 

… 

…I determine that the Union’s duties and obligations under the general law and the Collective 

Agreement, require it to be present at meetings between the Company and an individual 

employee where the conditions under which a disabled or injured employee, who is returning 

to work, are being discussed. 

Another arbitrator has said that because the union is a party to the collective agreement whose provisions 

might possibly be compromised by a particular accommodation suggestion, the union should be a part of 

honest and sincere accommodation discussions so that it may offer its own options, suggestions and views on 

how compromises might be achieved. 27 

25 Cambridge Brass v. U.S.A., [1998] O.L.A.A. No. 103 (Ontario, Beck). 

26 [2003] O.L.A.A. No. 728 (Ontario, Shime). 

27 East Regional Integrated Health Authority v. Nfld. and Labrador Assn. of Public and Private Employees, 

[2008] N.L.L.A.A. No. 4 (Nfld. & Labrador, Alcock).

7. Duty to Accommodate in the Hiring Process 



While this paper has focused primarily on the duty to accommodate within an employment relationship, it is 

important to understand that the duty to accommodate extends to all aspects of the hiring process. 

Generally speaking, employers have a duty to accommodate prospective employees who are unable to 

independently compete in certain aspects of the hiring process but who would otherwise be able to carry out 

the essential tasks associated with the position they are seeking. For example, even apart from forthcoming 

legal requirements under the Ontario Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, an employer may be 

obliged to assist a prospective employee who is learning disabled in filling out application forms or to provide 

additional time and one-on-one tutoring for competency evaluations. For applicants with visual impairment, the 

employer may be required to provide application materials in another format, such as audiotape, large type or 

Braille. 

Once an applicant notifies an employer of a disability (e.g., in an interview or via an application form), the duty 

to accommodate is engaged. This should prompt the employer to have a discussion with the applicant about 

accommodation, including further inquiry into the nature of the disability and the needs of applicant. 28 This 

responsibility is not borne solely by the employer; the applicant is also required to contribute to the 

accommodation discussion and has a duty to provide further information regarding his or her disability at the 

employer’s request. Failure to do so will frustrate an employer’s good faith attempt to accommodate the 

applicant’s disability. 29 

For applicants with learning disabilities, an employer can discharge its duty to accommodate by providing extra 

time to write exams and additional one-on-one tutoring. 30 The duty to accommodate is not satisfied if an 

employer delays the accommodation discussion until after a test in the event that a learning disabled applicant 

may pass without requiring accommodation. 31 

For competency evaluations, a distinction should be made between tests that are secondary to the 

performance of the role, and tests that are specifically prepared to measure capacities that are required to 

perform the essential duties of the role, the former will require accommodation, whereas the latter would likely 

be considered a BFOR. 

A pre-employment test that does not actually measure an applicant’s ability to perform the essential duties of a 

position may have to be modified or eliminated. In Re: Toronto District School Board and C.U.P.E. Local 440 

(Shaw), 32 the Ontario Arbitration Board ordered a school board to stop requiring cleaning staff applicants to 

demonstrate their ability to lift 50 pounds from floor to shoulder height. The arbitrator determined that this 

requirement would disproportionally exclude female applicants, and further, these applicants could be 

accommodated without undue hardship by modifying the weight of objects they carried and /or by assigning 

heavier loads to other staff. 

The duty is also engaged when an applicant is required to undergo a pre-employment medical examination. 

The employer must demonstrate that the criteria for passing a physical are based on convincing evidence. In 

28 Mazzei v. Toronto District School Board [2011] O.H.R.T.D. No. 376. 

29 Brady v. Interior Health Authority, 2007 BCHRT 223. 

30 Formosa v. Toronto Transit Commission [2009] O.H.R.T.D. No. 51. 


32 Re Toronto District School Board and C.U.P.E. Local 440 (Shaw) (2003), 120 L.A.C. (4 th ) 396.



Power v. Wabush Mines, 33 a prospective land surveyor was denied employment on the basis of a physical 

examination which found him to be deaf in one ear. The employer provided anecdotal evidence to support its 

position that a partially deaf land surveyor could put himself and his coworkers at risk. The Court held that 

anecdotal evidence to support an occupational requirement is not sufficient; rather, the risk to the applicant 

and his coworkers must be supported by strong evidence. Since the employer was unable to offer convincing 

evidence of the risk, the Court ruled that the full hearing requirement acted as an unfair bar to applicants with 

partially impaired hearing. In a similar case decided by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, it was held that if 

there is convincing evidence that the requirement is a BFOR, the employer will be released of their duty to 

accommodate. 34 

There must be a correlation between a pathology uncovered in a physical examination and a demonstrated 

inability to perform the essential requirements of a job. In a recent case heard by the Ontario Human Rights 

Tribunal, a prospective firefighter who had passed a series of rigorous physical tests was later denied 

employment on the basis of a medical examination that revealed he had severe end-stage osteoarthritis in 

one knee. Though he was found to have “the knees of an 80-year old”, he was asymptomatic and was still 

able to maintain the high level of physical activity the role required. The Tribunal found that the employer 

discriminated against the applicant on the basis of a perceived physical disability because the applicant had 

proven that he could perform the essential requirements of the job, further noting that the employer had 

ignored expert medical evidence to that effect. 35 

The duty to accommodate job applicants does not extend an obligation to provide a disabled applicant with 

another job that better suits their abilities. To do so would afford persons with disabilities preferential access to 

job vacancies, not equal opportunity to apply for job openings. 36 

8. Specific Examples of the Duty to Accommodate 

There are numerous ways in which employers will be required to accommodate employees with disabilities. 

Two examples that appear quite frequently involve absenteeism and the duty to provided modified work. 

(a) Absenteeism 

While a comprehensive discussion of the duty to accommodate absenteeism is beyond the scope of this 

paper, certain general principles are instructive. As a starting point, the employment relationship is predicated 

on the understanding that the employee will appear for work on a regular and reliable basis and the employer 

will pay for the service. Excessive innocent absenteeism has the potential to nullify that relationship. 37 

With the advent of human rights law and the growing recognition of human rights principles, employers must 

also discharge the duty to accommodate before discharging disabled employees. The general approach taken 

33 Power v. Wabush Mines , [1995] N.J. No, 314 (NFLD S.C.). 

34 Patry v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, [1995] C.H.R.D. No. 5. 

35 Davis v. Toronto (City) [2011] O.H.R.T.D. No. 814. 


37 Desormeaux v. Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission, [2004] F.C.J. No. 2172 (F.C.) at para. 114, 

rev’d on other grounds 2005 FCA 311; MacRae v. International Forest Products Ltd., [2005] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 

462 (B.C.H.R.T.) at para. 136; Ulnooweg Development Group Inc. v. Wilmot, [2007] N.S.J. No. 172 (N.S.C.A.) 

at paras. 29-30.



in the most recent arbitration decisions is to determine first whether the employer has satisfied the common 

law tests regarding absenteeism and second whether the employer has fulfilled the duty to accommodate. 38 

Generally speaking, when an employee is disciplined or terminated due to absenteeism related to a disability, 

a prima facie case of discrimination will be found. Depending on the facts and circumstances, the discharge 

may ultimately be justified as having been based on a BFOR. 39 For example, the ability to perform some 

productive work for the employer has been held to be a BFOR. 40 On the other hand, universal application of a 

disciplinary absentee policy to injured or disabled workers will generally be found to be discriminatory. 41 

In so far as accommodation is concerned, refusal of a request for part-time work as a form of accommodation 

may not satisfy the Meiorin test, particularly where the employer is unable to establish undue hardship. 42 In the 

context of non-culpable absenteeism, failure to consider accommodation alternatives is a breach of the duty to 

accommodate. 43 Similarly, where an employer can tolerate a temporary absence by paying vacation pay owing 

to the employee during the absence and hiring a replacement worker, there is no undue hardship. 44 It has 

been held, however, that an employer may not be required to tolerate an absenteeism rate in excess of 30% 

over many years of employment. 45 

Finally, in Hydro-Quebec, the Supreme Court held that the employer had met its duty to accommodate a 

unionized employee who had been absent for 960 days over the course of seven-and-a-half years of work. As 

noted above, the employer had tried to adapt the employee’s working situation to allow her to continue her 

employment, but eventually terminated the employee after the medical evidence indicated that she would not 

be able to continue working without similar ongoing absences. The Supreme Court held that if the 

characteristics of an illness are such that the proper operation of the business is hampered excessively or if an 

employee with such an illness remains unable to work for the reasonably foreseeable future even though the 

employer has tried to accommodate him or her, the employer will have satisfied the test for undue hardship. 

(b) Modified Duties, Bundling Work and Creating New Positions 

In many cases employees requesting accommodation will be unable to fulfill all of the requirements of their 

current positions. Recent trends suggest that in such cases, employers are required to consider whether 

modified work and/or bundling tasks together is possible without undue hardship. However, the employer is 

not required to “make work” in order to accommodate an employee, the proposed tasks must be productive 

and meaningful and must involve work that otherwise needs to be performed. 

38 MacRae v. International Forest Products Ltd., supra at para. 103. 

39 MacRae v. International Forest Products Ltd., supra at para. 104; Schram v. Western Forest Products Inc., 

[2007] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 172 (B.C.H.R.T.). 

40 Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Jeffrey, [2007] O.J. No. 3767 (Ont. S.C.J., Div. Ct.). 

41 Giuseppe Gariano and Fluor Constructors Canada Ltd. (Alberta Human Rights Panel, May 30, 2006). 

42 Skopitz v. Intercorp Excelle Foods Inc., [1999] O.J. No. 1543 (Ont. C.J. Gen. Div.). 

43 Eyerley v. Seaspan International Ltd., [2001] C.H.R.D. No. 45 (C.H.R.T.) 

44 Bielecky v. Young, Macnamara (1992), 12 L.W. 1237-003 (Ont. Board of Inquiry). 

45 Desormeaux v. Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission, supra.



A related issue is whether the employer is obliged to exempt employees from certain tasks associated with 

their positions. It is now generally accepted that the duty to accommodate may require modification of duties, 

within the context of the undue hardship standard. In such cases, decision makers will review the evidence to 

determine whether exemption from certain duties will result in undue hardship in terms of decreased 

productivity, costs, safety risk, disruption of the collective agreement etc. Relevant considerations include the 

following: 

• whether the employer has historically not required the accommodated employee or coworkers in the 

employee’s position to perform all tasks associated with the position; 

• the availability of a sufficient number of coworkers to ensure that the exempted tasks are performed 

competently; 

• the existence or absence of contractual limitations on exempting tasks and/or requiring coworkers to 

perform the exempted tasks; 

• whether the exemption would lead to increased safety risks; 

• whether the exemption would unreasonably increase the workload of coworkers; 

• evidence that the task in question is performed infrequently or comprises only a small portion of the 

accommodated employee’s duties; and 

• whether the exemption would leave the employee performing unproductive work or would otherwise 

lead to undue hardship in terms of cost (i.e. hiring replacement workers, excessive overtime etc.). 

Several decisions have not required exemption from tasks that are deemed to be essential or when it has 

been determined that removing the tasks in question would result in a radically altered position. There are also 

numerous cases (particularly in the arbitration context), that address the issue of bundling and modified work. 

When the case law is viewed globally, several key themes emerge: 

• While there is arbitral support for the position that employers need not create entirely new positions for 

employees who need accommodation, it is clear that the employer’s duty to accommodate includes a 

duty to consider bundling together a variety of tasks or modifying work in accordance with an 

employee’s limitations. 

• The resulting position must be productive and useful; the employer is not required to fill an employee’s 

day with “make-work” tasks. In addition, the resulting position must involve work that the employer 

would otherwise have performed. 

• Most decision makers agree that the employer is not obliged to modify a position if doing so would 

result in stripping away the core or essential functions of a position, although at least one arbitrator 

has suggested that an employee can be exempted from essential job functions, depending on the 

circumstances, up to the point of creating a fundamentally different position. 

• There is no magic number in terms of how much of an existing position an employee can or cannot 

do. The critical issue is whether the employee is able to perform the essential duties of the position 

and whether the work place can be reorganized to ensure that the employee is performing productive 

work. This will necessarily involve a determination of whether there are coworkers who can 

reasonably perform the exempted tasks.



• The more recent cases apply the strictest test of undue hardship. As a result, while cases from 5-10 

years ago will be helpful, decision makers are more likely to be guided by the way in which the law on 

this issue has evolved over the last several years. 

9. Recent Cases of Interest 

This section highlights a number of recent cases concerning the duty to accommodate and will focus 

specifically on the characteristics of the employment relationship and some recent examples of limits on the 

duty to accommodate. 

(a) The Definition of the Employment Relationship 

Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) 46 

In its recent decision in Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship 

Commission), the Alberta Court of Appeal provided further direction on how an employer is to be defined for 

the purposes of the Human Rights Act. 

The case concerned a complainant who was denied access to the Syncrude site in Fort McMurray because he 

failed a drug test. The complainant was a long term employee of Lockerbie & Hole, Lockerbie & Hole had 

contracted with general contractor Kellogg, Brown and Root to perform work on the Syncrude site. Syncrude 

had a policy that contractors could not bring workers onto the site unless they passed a drug test, which the 

complainant had failed. While a Human Rights Panel ultimately found that the complainant had not been 

discriminated against because he was a recreational drug user, and therefore not disabled by an addiction to 

drugs, the Panel also adopted a broad definition of employment, concluding that Syncrude was an “employer” 

because it utilized the complainant’s services. 

On appeal, the Court of Queen’s Bench disagreed with the characterization of Syncrude as an employer, 

concluding that the Panel’s definition of employer was too broad. While the employment relationship should be 

given a wide definition under human rights legislation, it is not wide enough to cover the relationship between 

the owner of an industrial site and the employees of arm’s length contractors working on the site. Instead, the 

Court focused on the nature of the relationship between the complainant and Syncrude, concluding that there 

was no express or implied contractual link between the complainant and Syncrude. 

The Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal who upheld 

the Queen’s Bench decision and further defined the meaning of “employment” under the Human Rights Act. 

Again noting that while “employment” is not defined in the Human Rights Act, it should be given a flexible and 

contextual interpretation that intends a broader meaning to “employment” than the traditional “master and 

servant” relationship at common law. 

In reviewing the Queen’s Bench decision, the Court of Appeal opined that the definition of employer should be 

broader than what had been decided at the Queen’s Bench, noting that to require an express or implied 

contractual link between the complainant and the entity alleged to be the employer would exclude many 

relationships that have previously been considered to be “employment” under human rights law. Nevertheless, 

the Court of Appeal held that the presence or absence of a contractual link is “a significant factor” to consider 

when characterising the relationship. 

The Court of Appeal set out a list of factors that must be taken into consideration when determine whether a 

particular relationship qualifies as “employment” under the Alberta Human Rights Act: 

46 2011 ABCA 3.

• whether there is another more obvious employer involved; 



• the source of the employee’s remuneration, and where the financial burden falls; 

• normal indicia of employment, such as employment agreements, collective agreements, statutory 

payroll deductions, and T4 slips; 

• who directs the activities of, and controls the employee, and has the power to hire, dismiss and 

discipline; 

• who has the direct benefit of, or directly utilizes the employee’s services; 

• the extent to which the employee is a part of the employer’s organization, or is a part of an 

independent organization providing services; 

• the perceptions of the parties as to who was the employer; 

• whether the arrangement has deliberately been structured to avoid statutory responsibilities. 

Where it is alleged there is more than one co-employer, the following factors are also relevant: 

• the nexus between any co-employer and the employee, including whether there is a direct contractual 

relationship between the complainant and the co-employer; 

• the independence of any alleged co-employer from the primary employer, and the relationship (if any) 

between the two; 

• the nature of the arrangement between the primary employer and the co-employer, for example, 

whether the co-employer is merely a labour broker, compared to an independent subcontractor; 

• the extent to which the co-employer directs the performance of the work. 

Other factors may be relevant in particular cases. 

Further, the Court of Appeal opined that in situations where the complainant potentially has two employers, it 

will be “rare that the concept [of employment] can be extended so far as to encompass employment by two 

different parties”. 

On the facts, the Court of Appeal concluded that the complainant was clearly an employee of Lockerbie & 

Hole, he had no contractual relationship with Syncrude, he was not part of the organization, nor did he report 

to Syncrude, and Syncrude did not direct his work. Thus his relationship with Syncrude was too remote to 

justify a finding of employment, even under an extended meaning given to “employment” under human rights 

law. 

While the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Lockerbie & Hole ostensibly broadened the definition of 

“employment” from the decision at the Queen’s Bench, the adoption of a more structured analytical test will aid 

in bringing some certainty to the question of the employment relationship under the Alberta Human Rights Act. 

375850 Alberta Ltd. v Noel 47 

47 2011 ABQB 218.



The criteria developed by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Lockerbie & Hole were recently applied by the Alberta 

Court of Queen’s Bench in 375850 Alberta Ltd v. Noel. The complainant was a female employee of a welltesting 

company, Dy-Kel. Dy-Kel arranged for and paid for the complainant’s accommodation at a camp run by 

375850 Alberta Ltd. One of the camp employees had, on numerous occasions, entered her room without 

permission, once catching her as she was exiting the shower, while another time she awoke in her bed to find 

the employee standing in her room. The complainant informed the camp manager, who referred her to a 

director of 375850 Alberta Ltd., who did not respond to her requests. The complainant eventually quit her job 

and left the camp. 

The complainant filed a human rights complaint against 375850 Alberta Ltd. alleging gender discrimination in 

employment (sexual harassment). The complaint was upheld by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. With 

respect to the issue of employment, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant’s living arrangements fell 

under the wording of s. 7(1)(b), which provided protection from discrimination “with regard to employment, or 

any term or condition of employment”. The Tribunal rejected 375850 Alberta Ltd.’s argument that the Human 

Rights Act did not apply because the complainant was not its employee, finding that 375850 Alberta Ltd. 

should have taken action to rectify the actions of its employees. 

375850 Alberta Ltd. appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench on the basis that it was 

not the complainant’s employer for the purposes of the Alberta Human Rights Act. The Court of Queen’s 

Bench applied the factors set out by the Court of Appeal in Lockerbie & Hole, concluding that 375850 Alberta 

Ltd. was not the complainant’s employer. 375850 Alberta Ltd. did not pay the complainant, did not direct her 

activities, did not have the power to discipline or dismiss her, did not benefit for her services, and neither party 

appeared to have been under the impression that the complainant was employed by 375850 Alberta Ltd. 

Since the structure of the employment relationships in both of these cases are commonly practiced in Alberta, 

it will be interesting to see if the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Lockerbie & Hole will have a wider impact on 

Alberta human rights law, and on human rights law elsewhere within Canada. 

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) 48 

Other jurisdictions seem to be moving toward a broader definition of the employment relationship. In Fasken 

Martineau DuMoulin LLP v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), the British Columbia Supreme Court 

concluded that a law firm partner is an “employee” under the meaning of the B.C. Human Rights Code (the 

“Code”). A senior partner challenged his firm’s mandatory retirement policy by filing an age discrimination 

complaint under the Code. The law firm argued that the firm is a collection of individual partners and does not 

exist separate from this. Since the complainant was a partner, he could not be in an employment relationship 

with “the partnership”, because that would be akin to bringing a claim against himself. 

In upholding the decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal, the Court found that there is a distinction between 

the rank and file partners and the management of the firm such that the former can bring a human rights 

complaint against the latter. The Court considered, first and foremost, the issue of the control that the 

management of the firm exerted over the rank and file partners: 

In particular, the partnership agreement authorises management control over what services 

that equity partner provides, how he provides those services, who he offers services to, the 

time he must devote to the business of the firm, what compensation he is entitled to receive, 

and when he must leave the firm. 

Clearly this is a much broader definition of the employment relationship than what was decided by the Alberta 

Court of Appeal in Lockerbie & Hole. 

48 2011 BCSC 713

(b) Recent Examples of Limits on the Duty to Accommodate 

OPSEU v. Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) 49 



The grievor had worked for the employer as a customer service representative for 20 years. He was 

terminated for taking $910 from a cash register, but was reinstated eight months later pursuant to a settlement 

between the parties. As part of the settlement, the grievor was required to sign a last chance agreement, 

which provided that in the event of any further act of dishonesty, an arbitrator would be unable to alter the 

penalty imposed by management. The grievor was supposed to report for duty shortly after his reinstatement, 

but told his employer several times that he was unable to return to work due to leg surgery and his need for 

additional recovery time. In fact, the grievor never underwent surgery. When the employer asked for medical 

documentation justifying the absences, it became clear that reasons given by the grievor for his absence were 

untrue, though it did appear that he may have been suffering from a mental illness. The employer terminated 

the grievor for breach of the last chance agreement and the union grieved. 

The Ontario Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, holding that there was no basis for 

overturning the termination. While the Board accepted that the grievor was suffering from an adjustment 

disorder, the Board found that the adjustment disorder did not cause the grievor to be “cognitively impaired”. In 

other words, the grievor’s ability to make choices was not significantly impaired and he did not have a 

cognitive deficit that displaced his responsibility for his actions or significantly affected his ability to choose to 

act differently. As a result, the grievor’s disability was not a significant cause of his dishonest conduct and 

there was no requirement for accommodation. 

Yukon (Human Rights Commission) v. Yukon (Human Rights Board of Adjudication) 50 

The complainant was a government employee who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1999. He returned 

to work and was accommodated through flexible work arrangements, including frequent breaks, restructured 

tasks and the ability to work from home. In 2005, the complainant started a one year assignment as an Acting 

Assistant Deputy Minister. Approximately six months into the assignment, he advised the Deputy Minister that 

he was in a seasonal hypomanic phase and needed greater levels of accommodation. His work routine was 

changed and he was allowed to work irregular hours, including starting work as early as 3:00 or 4:00 in the 

morning. In May 2005, in a senior management meeting, the complainant became aggressive, argumentative 

and disruptive, challenging and criticizing the Deputy Minister. As a result, the complainant was placed on paid 

sick leave and directed to obtain treatment. The employer flew the complainant to his psychiatrist for an 

assessment. He returned to work in September 2005, then filed a discrimination complaint. 

The Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication dismissed the complaint, concluding that the employer’s 

actions were not based on stereotypes. The complainant had been successfully accommodated for six years 

and the employer did not discriminate against him. The employer’s course of action was intended to deal with 

his inappropriate behaviour in a manner beyond the usual route of discipline, taking into account his medical 

condition. The Yukon Supreme Court and Court of Appeal agreed. The Court of Appeal held that the employer 

was attempting to determine whether the complainant’s conduct was due to his medical condition or whether it 

was disciplinable, which was appropriate in the circumstances. 

Ellis v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. 51 

49 [2011] O.G.S.B.A. No. 108 (Ontario, Brown). 

50 2010 YCCA 3. 

51 2011 HRTO 1453.



The employee suffered an on the job injury that resulted in ankle and foot pain, which was aggravated by 

excessive walking or standing. The employer, the employee and the union worked together to identify the 

position of wet deck sander as appropriate. The employee tried the position, but found that it required too 

much walking and standing. The employer retained an ergonomist, held meetings with the employee and 

conducted extensive searches to find an appropriate position. The employee suggested that he should be 

offered the group leader position for the group that included the wet deck sander position. The employer 

disagreed, and continued its search for an appropriate position, eventually identifying a suitable position in the 

stamping plant. The employee declined that position and continued working as a wet deck sander. He then 

retired and filed a human rights complaint. 

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had not breached 

either the procedural or the substantive aspects of the duty to accommodate. The employer went to great 

lengths to accommodate the employee, retaining an ergonomist and conducting exhaustive searches. While 

the wet deck sander position was not appropriate, after that was determined, the employer continued its 

search for a better position. Although the employee likely could have performed the job functions of the group 

leader position, the Tribunal held that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to promote an 

employee to a position they would not otherwise have earned. The Tribunal further confirmed that an 

employee in need of accommodation is not entitled to his or her preferred accommodation, but rather is 

entitled to reasonable accommodation. The employer’s liability with respect to the duty to accommodate ended 

when the employee refused the stamping plant position. 

OPSEU v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) 52 

The grievor was a lesbian correctional officer who had been employed at the Vanier Centre for Women since 

2003. In April of 2007, she filed a grievance alleging that the requirement for her to conduct strip searches of 

female offenders was discriminatory, because it placed her in a compromising situation. The grievance was 

denied and referred to arbitration, pending which the grievor was temporarily assigned, at her own request, to 

the Maplehurst Correctional Complex, an all-male facility where she would not be required to conduct strip 

searches. She returned to the Vanier facility in 2010, but complaints arose because she was not conducting 

strip searches of female offenders. She requested accommodation that would exempt her from the 

requirement to perform the searches. This was denied, and the grievor filed another grievance. The grievor 

was then offered temporary accommodation at Maplehurst, but she declined. Discussions ensued during 

which the grievor continued to request accommodation at Vanier (in part due to her participation in various 

volunteer activities at Vanier) while the employer continued to take the position that accommodation at 

Maplehurst was appropriate. 

The Ontario Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Maplehurst 

accommodation was reasonable in all the circumstances. The employer was not obliged to attempt to 

accommodate the grievor in her own position at Vanier before turning to alternate accommodations. 

Furthermore, while the volunteer services provided by the grievor through the union and various committees 

were valuable, the employer’s duty to accommodate did not extend to considering such activities. The Board 

stated: “the law does not entitle [the grievor] to her preferred accommodation, or the most appropriate 

accommodation. She is entitled only to a reasonable accommodation.” 

10. Conclusion 

The duty to accommodate requires employers to ensure that they individually assess and manage each 

employee’s unique circumstances to determine if that employee can be accommodated to the point of undue 

hardship. Accommodation may require tolerance of absenteeism, provision of modified duties, bundling 

together tasks that the employee is able to perform or transferring the employee to a different (but preexisting) 

position within the workplace. The duty also extends to all aspects of the hiring process. While the 

52 [2011] O.G.S.B.A. No. 107 (Ontario, Dissanayake).



Supreme Court of Canada has recently acknowledged that the standard of undue hardship is not synonymous 

with impossibility, there is no question that it remains an onerous threshold to meet. 

In our view, however, the recent higher court decisions with respect to undue hardship and the definition of the 

employment relationship have helped to clarify the limits to the duty to accommodate and demonstrate a 

subtle shift of the pendulum back toward a more principled approach to discrimination. With respect to limits 

on the duty to accommodate, some of the recent cases are encouraging, as they highlight the fact that an 

employee is only entitled to reasonable accommodation, not preferred or perfect accommodation. The 

employee is not entitled to dictate the accommodation that he or she will accept, and has a duty to accept 

reasonable accommodation.

« Observant les nuages de tous les angles » - 

Les risques et avantages de l’informatique nuagière 

Davis s.e.n.c.r.l. - Conférence sur le droit de l’emploi et du travail 

Montréal, Québec | Le 24 mai 2012 

Qu’est-ce que l’informatique nuagière? 

Qu’est-ce que l’informatique nuagière? 

Tamara Hunter 

• technologies fournissant les services de calcul, de 

logiciel, d’accès aux données et de stockage qui ne 

requièrent pas que les utilisateurs soient au courant de 

l’emplacement physique et de la configuration du 

système rendant les services 

(Wikipedia – notre traduction) 

• fourni via un réseau (typiquement, via internet) 



Catégories 

• « Infrastructure as a Service » (« laaS ») et Stockage 

• Fournit l’infrastructure informatique, ainsi que le 

stockage et l’exploitation des réseaux 

• « Software as a Service » (« Saas ») 

• Fournit des logiciels sans avoir besoin d’installer et 

d’exécuter des applications 

• « Platform as a Service » (« PaaS ») 

• Permet le développent et le déploiement 

d’applications sans avoir besoin d’acheter du matériel 

ou des logiciels spécifiques 

Bénéfices 

• coût 

• évolutivité 

• mobilité de l’utilisateur 

• personnalisation 

• fiabilité? 

• performance? 

• sécurité? 

Informatique nuagière : 

Risques et problèmes généraux 




• l’emplacement et la juridiction 

• la propriété des données 

• l’interruption d’affaires (fournisseur des services) 

• la perte d’accès (client) 


• code source et entiercement 

• migration 

• qui peut avoir accès? 

• sauvegarde et archivage 


• sécurité 

• destruction des données 

• violation des droits de propriété intellectuelle 



Obligations clés 

Informatique nuagière: 

Litige (preuve électronique) 

• Divulgation 

• doit divulguer chaque document pertinent en 

possession, control ou garde 

• « document » défini de façon large 

• Préservation 

• doit préserver tous les documents pertinents 

• Conséquences sérieuses en cas de violation 

Preuve électronique 

• Les documents électroniques augmentent la portée, la 

complexité et les coûts associés au processus de 

communication au préalable 

• Les tribunaux sont conscients de l’importance des 

documents électroniques 



L’informatique nuagière et la communication au 

préalable 

• Les obligations de divulgation et de préservation 

s’appliquent encore 

• Le tribunal ne se soucie pas si vous stocké des 

données dans votre établissement ou dans le « nuage » 

- se soucie seulement de savoir si vous avez la 

possession ou le contrôle 


préalable 

• Considérer les risques : 

• pertes de données 

• pratiques de préservation des données non-conformes 

• plateforme pas facilement recherchée 

• sous-traitance 


préalable 

• le contrat d’informatique nuagière est crucial 

• maintenir le contrôle légal sur les données 

• diligence raisonnable à l’égard du fournisseur 

d’informatique nuagière 

• capacité de récupérer les données dans toute 

circonstance 



Informatique nuagière : 

Conformité en matière de protection des 

renseignements personnels 

• Quand vous pensez à l’informatique nuagière, pensez à 

une « méga sous-traitance » 

• La sous-traitance régulière, c’est quand vous stocké 

vos données dans vos propres serveurs, mais vous 

envoyé certaines données à un tiers fournisseur ou à 

un service afin qu’ils puissent performer une fonction 

avec les données et fournir un produit (i.e. envoyer des 

chèques personnalisés à vos clients ou traiter vos états 

des salaires et organiser des dépôts directs à vos 

employés. 



• L’infrastructure informatique nuagière veut dire que 

vous n’avez plus vos propres serveurs – Vos avez 

sous-traité toute l’infrastructure 

• Le problème principal en matière de protection des 

renseignements personnels est la sécurité de 

l’information personnelle 

• L’emplacement géographique de l’information 

personnelle est un problème important en matière du 

droit à la vie privée, surtout pour les organismes 

publics en Colombie-Britannique (et pour les 

fournisseurs des services d’organismes publics) mais 

la préoccupation concernant l’emplacement 

géographique des données est essentiellement une 

question de sécurité 



Les organismes publics en C.-B. : L’article 30.1 de 

FOIPPA (notre traduction) 

• Un organisme public doit s’assurer que l’information 

personnelle qui est sous sa garde ou sous son contrôle 

soit stockée et accédée seulement au Canada, [à moins 

qu’une exception particulière s’applique] 

• une violation de l’art. 30.1 de FOIPPA est une infraction 

• certains fournisseurs des services d’infrastructure 

informatique nuagière sont au courant de cette 

exigence et offrent des services « nuagiers » qui s’y 

conforment 

Québec – La législation dans le secteur privé en 

matière de protection des renseignements personnels 

• si vous utilisez un fournisseur des services à l’extérieur du 

Québec pour stocké ou traiter l’information personnelle, il 

faut prendre toutes les démarches raisonnables pour 

s’assurer que l’information personnelle ne sera pas utilisée à 

des fins qui ne relèvent pas de l’objet du dossier ou qu’elle 

ne soit communiquée à des tiers sans consentement 

• si vous n’êtes pas convaincu que l’information personnelle 

sera protégée adéquatement, il ne faut pas communiquer 

l’information à l’extérieur du Québec (art. 17) 

• Qu’en est-il des professionnels (i.e. médecins, avocats, 

comptables, etc.) et des compagnies qui manipulent de 

l’information personnelle extrêmement sensible (i.e. banques, 

coopératives de crédit, compagnies d’assurances)? 

• Obligations déontologiques et contractuelles de confidentialité 

pourraient aussi nécessiter des solutions d’infrastructure 

informatique nuagière spécialisées 

• « Community Cloud » ou « Private Cloud » pourraient 

fonctionner (i.e. : « Law Society Cloud » pour les avocats) 



• Le secteur privé – reste tenu par LPRPDE, PIPA, la législation 

concernant la protection des renseignements personnels dans 

le secteur privé au Québec (et, possiblement, par des 

obligations contractuelles) de prendre des précautions 

raisonnables de sécurité afin de protéger l’information 

personnelle de risques tels que l’accès sans autorisation, la 

divulgation, la destruction, etc. 

• Les contrats standards d’informatique nuagière risquent de ne 

pas protéger de façon suffisante l’information personnelle d’un 

client/employé 

• Devoir de transparence/notification (les clients/employés ont 

le droit d’être informés) 

Problèmes de sécurité : 

• quels emplacements géographiques peuvent être impliqués? 

Écartez-en ou stipulez des juridictions acceptables 

• réputation/historique du fournisseur d’informatique nuagière 

• quelles autres données seront mêlées avec les données de 

votre organisation? L’objet de la préoccupation: 

concentration des données à haut risque 

• est-ce que votre organisation aura accès aux pistes de 

vérification? 

• quels délais vous seront imposés pour produire une 

copie des dossiers de votre organisation? Est-ce que 

votre organisation sera en mesure de se conformer aux 

délais? 

• quelles sont les obligations d’un fournisseur 

d’informatique nuagière en cas d’un bris de sécurité 

d’information? 

• notification immédiate à votre organisation? 

• indemnité pour dommages et honoraires 

professionnels? 



• Qu’est-ce qui arrive si le fournisseur d’informatique 

nuagière fait faillite? Fichiers de 

sauvegarde/entiercement pourraient ne pas suffire sans 

avoir accès au logiciel d’application nécessaire pour 

décoder les données stockées 

• Le contrat prévoit-il une méthode pour que votre 

organisation puisse vérifier la conformité de votre 

fournisseur d’informatique nuagière à ses obligations de 

sécurité contractuelles? 

• assurance – Est-ce que la couverture d’assurance de 

votre organisation pour les bris de sécurité ou perte de 

données s’applique lorsque vos données sont dans 

« les nuages »? 

MERCI 

Tamara Hunter 

Associate Counsel, 

Head of Privacy Law Group, Vancouver 

tamara_hunter@davis.ca 

604.643.2952 



“Looking at Clouds from both Sides” – 

Risks and Benefits of Cloud Computing 

Employment and Labour Law Conference 

May 24, 2012 

What is Cloud Computing? 

What is cloud computing? 

Tamara Hunter 

• technologies that provide computation, software, 

data access and storage services that do not require 

end-user knowledge of the physical location and 

configuration of the system that delivers the services 

(Wikipedia) 

• delivered over a network (typically, the Internet) 



Categories 

• Infrastructure as a Service (“IaaS”) and Storage 

• Delivers computer infrastructure, along with storage and 

networking 

• Software as a Service (“Saas”) 

• Delivers software without the need to install and run 

applications 

• Platform as a Service (“PaaS”) 

• Allows the development and deployment of applications 

without the need to purchase specific hardware or software 

Benefits 

• Cost 

• Scalability 

• User mobility 

• Customizability 

• Reliability? 

• Performance? 

• Security? 

Cloud Computing: 

General Issues and Risks 




• Location and jurisdiction 

• Data ownership 

• Business interruption (service provider) 

• Loss of access (customer) 


• Source code and escrow 

• Migration 

• Who can access? 

• Backup and archiving 


• Security 

• Destruction of data 

• IP infringement 



Key Obligations 


Litigation (E-Discovery) 

• Disclosure 

• must disclose every relevant document in possession, 

control or power 

• “document” is broadly defined 

• Preservation 

• must preserve all relevant documents 

• Serious consequences for breach 

E-Discovery 

• Electronic documents increase scope, complexity and 

cost of discovery process 

• Courts aware of importance of electronic documents 



Cloud Computing and Discovery 

• Disclosure and preservation obligations still apply 

• Court does not care if you store data in your building or 

in the cloud – only cares whether you have possession 

or control 


• Consider risks: 

• lost data 

• non-compliant data preservation practices 

• platform not easily searched 

• sub-outsourcing 


• Cloud computing contract is key 

• Maintain legal control over data 

• Due diligence on cloud provider 

• Ability to retrieve data in any circumstance 




Privacy Law Compliance 

• When you think about Cloud Computing, consider it 

as “mega-outsourcing” 

• Regular outsourcing is when you store your data on 

your own servers, but you send certain data to an 

outside service provider or a service, so they can 

perform a function with the data and provide a product 

(e.g. send personalized cheques to your customers or 

process your payroll and arrange for direct deposits for 

your employees). 



• Cloud computing means you don’t have your own 

servers anymore – you’ve “out-sourced” that whole 

infrastructure 

• The key privacy law compliance issue is security of 

personal information 

• Geographic location of personal information is a 

significant privacy law issue, especially for public 

bodies in British Columbia (and service providers to 

public bodies) but the concern with geographical 

location of data really boils down to a security issue 



Public Bodies in B.C.: Section 30.1 of FOIPPA 

• A public body must ensure that personal information in 

its custody or under its control is stored only in Canada 

and accessed only in Canada, [unless a specific 

exception applies] 

• Breach of s. 30.1 of FOIPPA is an offence 

• Some cloud service providers are aware of this 

requirement and offer cloud services that meet this 

requirement 

Québec – Private Sector Privacy Legislation 

• If using service provider outside Québec to store or 

process personal information, must take all reasonable 

steps to ensure that the personal information will not be 

used for purposes not relevant to the object of the file or 

communicated to third persons without consent 

• If cannot be satisfied that the personal information will 

be properly protected, must not communicate the 

information outside Québec (s. 17) 

• What about professionals (e.g., doctors, lawyers, 

accountants, etc.) and businesses handling highly 

sensitive personal information (e.g. banks, credit unions, 

insurance companies)? 

• Ethical and contractual obligations around confidentiality 

may also require specialized cloud computing solutions 

• Community Cloud or Private Cloud may work (e.g. Law 

Society Cloud for lawyers is being considered) 



• Private Sector - still have obligation under PIPEDA, 

PIPA, the Québec Private Sector Privacy Legislation 

(and, possibly, contractual obligations) to make 

reasonable security arrangements to protect personal 

information from risks such as unauthorized access, 

disclosure, destruction, etc. 

• Standard Cloud Computing contracts may not sufficiently 

protect customer/employee personal information 

• Requirement for transparency/notification 

(customers/employees have a right to know) 

Security issues: 

• What geographic locations could be involved? Rule 

some out or stipulate acceptable jurisdictions 

• Reputation/history of cloud provider 

• What other data will be mingled with your organization's 

data? Concern re: concentration of high-risk data 

• Will your organization be able to access audit logs? 

• How quickly could you be required to produce a copy of 

your organization’s records? will your organization be 

able to meet that timeframe? 

• What obligations does the cloud provider have in the 

event of an information security breach? 

• Immediate notification to your organization? 

• Indemnity for any damages and professional fees? 



• What happens if the cloud provider goes bankrupt? 

backup/escrow might not be sufficient without access to 

the application software necessary to decode the stored 

data 

• Does the contract provide for a method for your 

organization to audit the cloud provider’s compliance 

with its contractual security obligations? 

• Insurance – does your organization’s insurance 

coverage for information security breaches or data loss 

apply if your data is “in the clouds”? 

Thank You 

Tamara Hunter 

Associate Counsel, 

Head of Privacy Law Group, Vancouver 

tamara_hunter@davis.ca 

604.643.2952 



L’équité salariale 

Êtes-vous conforme? 

Conférence offerte 

par 

Davis S.E.N.C.R.L 

sur 

Le droit de l’emploi et du travail 

24 mai 2012 

DISTINCTION IMPORTANTE 

Équité salariale 

Salaire égal pour un travail 

équivalent 

Ex: On compare le salaire 

d’une secrétaire 

réceptionniste à celui d’un 

commis à l’expédition. 


Égalité salariale 

≠ 

Salaire égal pour un travail égal 

Ex: On compare le salaire d’un 

infirmier à celui d’une 

infirmière. 

On évalue et on compare les emplois et non les personnes 

POURQUOI L’ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE? 

Salaire des postes à 

prédominance 

féminine 

L’Assemblée nationale du 

Québec 

adopte la Loi sur l’équité 

salariale en novembre 1996 

En mai 2009, modification de la 

Loi sur l’équité salariale 

Salaire des postes à 

prédominance 

masculine 

Le 31 mars 2011, Déclaration 

obligatoire de l’employeur en 

matière d’équité salariale 

(DEMES) 3 

2 

1

DÉCLARATION OBLIGATOIRE DE 

L’EMPLOYEUR EN MATIÈRE D’ÉQUITÉ 

SALARIALE (DEMES) 

■ S’applique à tous les employeurs de 6 salariés ou plus et permet de mesurer 

le taux d’application de la Loi 

■ Doit être effectuée en ligne sur www.demes.gouv.qc.ca annuellement 

■ Les renseignements suivants sont requis pour compléter cette déclaration 

� Le numéro d’entreprise du Québec 

� La taille de l’entreprise pendant la période de référence 

� Le secteur d’activité 

� La date d’affichage de la réalisation de l’équité, s’il y a lieu 

� La date d’affichage de l’évaluation du maintien, s’il y a lieu 

DÉCLARATION OBLIGATOIRE DE 

L’EMPLOYEUR EN MATIÈRE D’ÉQUITÉ 

SALARIALE (DEMES) 

■ Lettre envoyée aux entreprises par la Commission au cours de l’année 

■ Les entreprises n’ayant pas complété l’exercice d’équité salariale et qui 

étaient dans l’obligation de le faire peuvent être assujetties à une amende de 

l’ordre de 1 000$ à 45 000$ rétroactive avec 5% d’intérêts 

■ Dans le cas d’une plainte, un intérêt additionnel de 2% sera rajouté 

OBJECTIF DE LA LOI SUR L’ÉQUITÉ 

SALARIALE 

Corriger, à l'intérieur d'une même entreprise, les écarts salariaux dus à 

la discrimination systémique fondée sur le sexe à l'égard des personnes 

qui occupent des emplois dans des catégories d'emplois à 

prédominance féminine. 


4 

5 

6 

2

PRINCIPES DE BASE 

■La Loi sur l’équité salariale s’applique à toutes les entreprises publiques et privées 

ayant atteint une moyenne de 10 personnes salariées ou plus 

Entreprise en activité le 21 novembre 1996 

Période de référence 

21nov 1996 – 21 nov.1997 

Si 10 employés et plus, le portrait 

utilisé est celui du 1er février 2009 

PRINCIPES DE BASE (SUITE) 


Entreprise créée après le 21 novembre 1996 et 

avant le 12 mars 2004 

Entreprise créée entre le 13 mars 2004 

et le 12 mars 2008 

Entreprise créée après le 12 mars 2008 

Loi modifiant 

la LES 

■ Généralement, un programme d’équité salariale par entreprise 

■ L’employeur doit établir un programme distinct dans les cas suivants: 

Si demandé par une association accréditée 

S’il y a des disparités régionales 

■ Comité obligatoire pour les entreprises de 100 personnes salariées ou plus 

■ Comité facultatif pour les entreprises de 10 à 99 personnes salariées 

PRÉPARATION POUR COMPLÉTER 

L’EXERCICE 

■ Effectuer un diagnostic global 

� Accès à l’information nécessaire 

� Période de référence et date du portrait 

� Descriptions de postes 

� Structure salariale 

■ Rassembler la documentation 

� Organigramme 

� Liste des employés en date du portrait 

� Rémunération versée incluant primes, commissions, vacances annuelles, montants de REER 

alloués, allocations de voiture, etc. 

� Politiques et procédures 

� Coordonnées des anciens employés 

7 

8 

9 

3

PRÉPARATION POUR COMPLÉTER 

L’EXERCICE (SUITE) 

■ Définir la stratégie du processus 

� Un ou plusieurs programmes distincts 

� Un Comité d’équité salariale ou non 

� Questionnaires 

� Entretien avec les employés 

■ Définir un plan d’évaluation 

� Méthode d’évaluation 

� Facteurs et sous-facteurs 

� Pondération 

■ Définir un plan de communication 

� Quelles informations seront divulguées aux employés? 

� Échéancier des communications 

LES ÉTAPES DE LA DÉMARCHE 

D’ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE 

1. Identifier les catégories d’emplois 

2. Déterminer la prédominance sexuelle 

� Taux de représentation des femmes et des hommes dans une catégorie d’emplois (60%) 

� Historique 

� Stéréotypes occupationnels 

� Effectif 

3. Élaborer le plan d’évaluation 

� Choix des sous-facteurs 

� Qualifications requises 

� Responsabilités assumées 

� Efforts requis 

� Conditions de travail 

�Fixer la pondération 

4. Déterminer la valeur des emplois (attribution d’un pointage) 

LES ÉTAPES DE LA DÉMARCHE 

D’ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE 

5. Sélectionner la méthode d’estimation des écarts 

� Méthode globale 

� Méthodes individuelles 

6. Comparer les catégories d’emplois de prédominance féminine avec les 

catégories à prédominance masculine équivalentes en terme de pointage 

7. Estimer les écarts salariaux 

8. Définir, s’il y a lieu, les modalités de versements 

9. Procéder à l’affichage 

Bien documenter chacune des étapes pour la préparation du maintien 


10 

11 

12 

4

QUELS SALAIRES SERONT AJUSTÉS? 

Catégories d’emplois à 

prédominance féminine 

Catégories d’emplois à 

prédominance masculine 

Catégories d’emplois 

neutres 

OBLIGATION ET PRINCIPE DE 

L’ÉVALUATION DU MAINTIEN 


Peuvent recevoir des 

ajustements salariaux 

Servent de 

comparateurs 

Exclues de l’exercice 

� Identification des changements survenus depuis l’exercice d’équité 

� Vérification et/ou détermination des catégories d’emplois 

� Vérification et/ou détermination de la prédominance sexuelle 

� Évaluation et/ou réévaluation des catégories d’emplois 

� Analyse de la rémunération et estimation des écarts 

� Affichage 

Doit être complété tous les 5 ans suivant le 

dernier affichage. 

APPROCHE GAGNANTE 

■ Transparence 

■ Implication des employés 

■ Objectivité 

■ Rigueur dans le processus 

d’évaluation des postes 

■ Documentation détaillée de 

chacune des étapes de 

l’exercice 

IMPACT 

�Diminue les attentes 

�Facilite l’acceptation des résultats 

et la compréhension de ceux-ci 

�Évite les plaintes auprès de la 

Commission 

�Facilite l’exercice du maintien 

13 

14 

15 

5

AVANTAGES 

■Contribue à la bonne image de la compagnie 

■Élimine la discrimination salariale 

■Permet d’avoir un portrait global de la structure des emplois et des salaires 

■Assure une équité pour les générations futures 

VOUS AVEZ DES QUESTIONS? 

Merci de votre participation! 

Heidi Lange 

de 

LANGE CONSULTING 

www.langeconsultants.com 


16 

17 

6

where is the accessibility for ontarians with disabilities act, 2005 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?