Human Rights Legislation Group
Queen's University-
Meeting Highlights
-
Meeting #2: Workplace Harassment
- Red Button Issue: Written Complaint
- Red Button Issue: Verbal Complaint
- Excuse: Workplace culture of joking
- Excuse: Promise of confidentiality
- Excuse: Alleged harasser does not work here
- Excuse: Complainant does not work here
- Excuse: Alleged harasser is a manager
- Excuse: Complainant did not come forward
- Inadequate Response for coworkers
- Inadequate Response for Complainant
- Remedial action leads to retaliation
- Meeting the Test: Employer's Response
- Accessibility
- Non-Code Harassment
-
Meeting #3: Accessibility and Accommodation
- Hydro-Quebec
- McGill University
- Honda v Keays
- Hayes v Yukon College
- United Brotherhood
- Senyk v WFG Agency Network
- Kerr v Boehringer
- ADM Milling Co
- ADGA Group
- Toronto Police Association
- Hill v University of Waterloo
- Unger v B.C. College of Optics
- Lenihan v British Columbia
- CB v Emergency
- MF v Capilano Golf and Country Club
- J.B. v Fraser Milner Casgrain
- Gooding
- Brewery, Winery and Distillery Workers
- Direct Energy and Communications
- Manitoba Government
- Communications, Energy and Paperworkers
- Das
- Hickey
- Harris
- Meeting #4: Religious Discrimination and Accommodation
- Meeting #5: Sexual Harassment and Assault
- Meeting #6: Bill 168
- Meeting #7: Roundup
-
Meeting #8: Mental Disability and Bill 168 Roundup
- 168
- Students with Mental disabilites
- Staff with Mental Disabilities
- Faculty with Mental Disabilities
- Meeting #9: Roundup (including Bullying)
- Meeting#10: Aboriginal Issues
- Meeting #12 Accommodation Roundup
-
Meeting #2: Workplace Harassment
Students
1. Mohamed v University of Saskatchewan [2006] No. 39
When is it reasonable not to consider mental disability as a mitigating factor in cases involving students with mental disability accused of academic dishonesty?
2. Priya Singh and the University of British Columbia [2011] No. 369
Under what conditions must universities allow “extraordinary relief” for students with mental disabilities?
3. Fisher v. York University [2011] OHRTD
What mitigating factors are taken into consideration when determining if a university failed to accommodate a student with a learning disability?
4. Arenson v Law School Admission Council, Inc. [2010] OHRTD No 46.
What are the rights and responsibilities of the student with a learning disability who requests an exam accommodation and those of the service provider which administers the exam?