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
-
Meeting #9: Roundup (including Bullying)
- Students
- Complaints process
- Civil Action
- Apprehension of bias
- Prima Face Racial Discrimination
- Workplace Violence
- Meeting#10: Aboriginal Issues
- Meeting #12 Accommodation Roundup
-
Meeting #2: Workplace Harassment
Human Rights Complaint Resolution Processes
Baharloo v UBC [2011] BCHRTD 290
What questions does a Tribunal ask itself when considering whether a Senate Committee has dealt appropriately with a human rights-related case involving the expulsion of a student?
Baker v. Brentwood College School [2011] BCHRTD No. 335
What questions does a Tribunal ask itself when considering whether a college has responded adequately to a student’s human rights complaint?