Denied a Job Due to Lack of Canadian Work Eligibility? You May Have Been Discriminated Against If you have recently been denied a job due to a lack of proof of permanent eligibility to work in Canada, you may be entitled to compensation under Ontario human rights law. In a decision last year from the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, Haseeb v Imperial Oil Limited 2018 HRTO 957, an employer (Imperial Oil) refused to hire the applicant to whom they offered a job (Mr. Haseeb) after the job applicant failed to provide requested documentation regarding his legal authorization to work permanently in Canada. Mr. Haseeb, an international student, was a recent graduate of McGill University’s engineering program, and only possessed a postgraduate work permit for up to three years. The applicant anticipated he would attain permanent residency status within three years. Imperial Oil required graduate engineers to have permanent residency or citizenship to be eligible to apply for a permanent full-time job at their company. To circumvent this requirement, Mr. Haseeb repeatedly answered positively when asked about his eligibility to work in Canada on a permanent basis. These responses were false, as he only had a temporary work permit. Although Mr. Haseeb was offered a job at Imperial Oil, the company later rescinded the offer about one month following the deadline for acceptance. The Tribunal found that Imperial Oil did not rescind the offer due to Mr. Haseeb’s dishonesty, but rather because Mr. Haseeb did not provide required permanent work eligibility documentation when it was requested. The Human Rights Tribunal concluded that the employer’s hiring policy was directly discriminatory on its face towards international students. This meant that Imperial Oil was not permitted to rely upon the defence that permanent work eligibility was a bona fide occupational requirement. Moreover, the Tribunal determined permanent work eligibility could not have been required (i.e., an occupational requirement) to do the job effectively, as Imperial Oil was found to have recruited individuals without permanent work eligibility where their skills were particularly sought-after. If you would like more information on discrimination in hiring practices, or would like legal advice on being denied a job for discriminatory reasons, please contact Marty Rabinovitch at 416.446.5826 or marty.rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawJuly 23, 2019September 30, 2020
Challenging the Safe Streets Act By: Nicolas Di Nardo A law created in 1999 known as the Safe Streets Act is being challenged by the Fair Change Community Legal Clinic on the basis that it discriminates against people with mental health and addiction issues. Leading this dispute is Gerry Williams, along with the Fair Change Community Legal Clinic. Williams shares his experiences of being homeless and the amount of fines he was given over 9 years while trying to survive. Since then, he has overcome homelessness, has a job and a place to live. Gerry suffered from alcoholism and undiagnosed mental health issues, but is a very different person today. Before he was able to get the help he needed to thrive, he suffered. He managed to be handed $65,000 in fines over 9 years ago while homeless, all of which were given to him through provincial offences and convictions. These included: Loitering Littering Drinking in public Trespassing Gerry determined that approximately $10,000 worth of his tickets were issued through the Safe Streets Act while he was panhandling to survive. This law was intended to limit the aggressive behaviour brought on by people asking for money on the street, which also included squeegeeing. Williams is now part of a constitutional challenge to the Act, which was filed by the legal clinic last Wednesday. Fair Change has spoken up about the issues with this law, stating it is: Impacting people with mental health and addiction issues Costing the public $2 million in court fees and paperwork Fines under the act will likely never be paid Ruined credit scores, limiting opportunity for housing, drivers license, or work after being convicted under the Act Hurts people that are already vulnerable Increases homelessness Poverty remains the most pressing human rights issue in Canada, however, Joanna Nefs says the law is not doing anything to help fix that. Laws that are criminalizing people in poverty does not line up with the goal to end poverty, or the Human Rights Code, which Renu Mandhane, chief Commissioner for the Ontario Human Rights Commission is making reference to the Safe Streets Act as one of those laws. Fair Change is looking for the law to be repealed rather than fighting it, and this is not the first time. MPP Cheri DiNovo tabled private members’ bills in 2015 and 2016 for the Act to be repealed. Please check back to our blog for more update and developments to this story. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm located in Don Mills. If you require representation or have any questions, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP today. You may contact one of the many experienced lawyers on our website or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawJune 26, 2017June 22, 2020
Requiring Customers to Come to Stores Has Been Deemed Discriminatory By: Michelle Cook, Summer Law Student Could companies that require their customers to come into their physical stores be guilty of discrimination? A human rights adjudicator seems to think so. In Mills v Bell Mobility Inc, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member Edward Lustig awarded $10,000 plus interest in compensation for Ms. Mills’ pain and suffering as a result of being required to attend at a Bell store. The Tribunal found that a phone activation policy that required customers to physically present themselves in the company’s stores, thereby endangering the health of some disabled persons, amounted to discrimination based on disability, in contravention of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bell, one of the many companies that has such a policy, could not justify why disabled persons could not be accommodated through other methods of communication, such as Skype or Facetime. Ms. Mills was disabled as a result of cancer in late 2013 and a stroke that nearly killed her in 2014. Ms. Mills was bedridden, extremely weak and partially paralyzed. Her physician has instructed her to stay home, unless an emergency required her to leave. Her son had made attempts to activate her phone on her behalf, including an offer to come to the store with all Ms. Mills’ identification documents, including a valid Power of Attorney. However, Bell stood by their in-person policy and took the position that that its activation standards policy was necessary in order to combat identity fraud. Ms. Mills eventually relented and attended at a store to have her phone activated. She then commenced a human rights complaint. Interestingly, while she was ultimately successful in getting an award for pain and suffering, the CHRT member refused to find that Bell had committed reckless or wilful discrimination, citing its reputation as a company that “usually cares about its customers, including disabled Canadians,” especially its efforts to combat mental health stigma. For more commentary see: Law Times News Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm located in Don Mills. If you require representation or have any questions, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP today. You may contact one of the many experienced lawyers on our website or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawJune 26, 2017June 22, 2020
