803in the Unjust Dismissal case under the Canada Labour Code in Mathur v Bank of Nova Scotia (Armstrong).Back to book Page
806Federal Court of Appeal – Chopra; British Columbia Supreme Court – McIntosh v Metro Aluminum ProductsBack to book Page
807Xu v Ottawa HospitalBack to book Page
809Abouchar v Metropolitan Toronto School Board (1999) 35 CHRR D/ 175 (Laird) , and similarly in Moffatt v Kinark Child and Family Services (Laird) and also in Sandford v Koop (Gottheil)Back to book Page
810Ontario Court of Appeal Piazza v Airport Taxicab, (1985), 7 C.H.R.R. D/3196 (Ont. Bd. Inq.), var’d 24 O.A.C. 8 (Div. Ct.), rev’d 60 D.L.R. (4th) 759 (C.A.) (referenced in Ontario Human Rights Commission v Impact InteriorsBack to book Page
811Ontario Court of Appeal Ontario Human Rights Commission v Naraine, (leave to appeal to SCC refused [2002] SCCA No. 69)Back to book Page
812in her dissenting opinion in The Supreme Court of Canada decision of McKinney v University of Guelphyet the only decision of the five opinions which considered remedyBack to book Page
813Cameron v Nel-Gor Castle Nursing Home 1984 5 CHRR D/ 2170; Mark v Porcupine General Hospital (Cumming) 6 CHRRD/2538Back to book Page
814The decision was affirmed by the Divisional Court, and reversed by the Court of Appeal but not on this issue.
(Constance Backhouse) in December of 1996, inNaraine v Ford Motor Co. of Canada #5 28 CHRR D/ 267.
Back to book Page
815This is similar to the remedy in arbitral cases as to “concerns that the employment relationship is no longer viable” Alberta Union of Public Employees v. Lethbridge Community College, 2004SCC28(CanLII), [2004] S.C.R. 727, 2004 SCC 28 (CanLII), at para. 56.Back to book Page
816Modern Ontario cases are distinguished due to an anomaly in some cases suggesting reinstatement has been rarely requested and rarely ordered.Back to book Page
819Dhamrait v JVI Canada (Flaherty); Krieger v Toronto Police Services (Overend); Tearne v City of Windsor (Sengupta), conditioned by the applicant’s ability to provide a medical clearance and to complete Code compliant testing.Back to book Page
821The decision of Fair v Hamilton-Went worth District School Board, (Joachim), released on March 14, 2013 ordered reinstatement. (upheld in Divisional Court, leave to appeal granted May 1 , 2015)Back to book Page
822Canada – Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Pitawanakwat v Department of Secretary of State (Gash, Serwa & Turner); Federal Court
2001 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Nkwazi v Canada(Correctional Services) (Mactavish)
2006 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal of Desormeaux v Ottawa Carleton (Mactavish);
1999 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal of Bernard v Waycobah Board of Education,; Court of Appeal. (set aside by Federal Courton review and restored by Federal Court of Appeal); Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Uzoaba v Correctional Services;affirmed by Federal Court but not on this issue; Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Audet v CN (Hadjis); Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Chander v Canada ( Norton, Ellis and Ramcharan ); upheld on review Chander v Canada (FederalCourt); Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Eyerley v Seaspan (Sinclair) ;Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Grover v National Research Council (Fleck, Goldhar and Jordan);
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Grover v National Research Council #2 (Fleck, Goldhar & Jordan)
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Cruden v Canadian International Development Agency (Marchildon)
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Parisien v Ottawa-Carleton RegionalTransit (Hajdis), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Cremona v Wardair Canada Inc. # 3 20 CHHR D/398, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal McAvinn v Strait Crossing Bridge Limited (Deschamps)
Back to book Page
823B.C. Human Rights Tribunal 2008 Kalyn v Vancouver Island Health Authority: (Tyshynski)Back to book Page
824Alberta Human Rights Tribunal December 2012 Cowling v The Queen (Heafey)
Alberta Human Rights Tribunal February 2000 Weit mann v City ofCalgary Electrical System (Bryant) Alberta Court of Appeal June of 2013 AUPE v Alberta (obiter)
Back to book Page
825Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal City of Regina v Kivela, upheld on initial review the chambers motion and on further appeal The Court of Appeal; SaskatchewanHumanRightsTribunal in Saskatchewan Inc. (No. 3)65 CHRR / 220Back to book Page
826New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board Way v Department of Education;New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board A.B v Brunswick NewsBack to book Page
827Prince Edward Island Human Rights Panel June 210 decision in Nilsson v University of Prince Edward IslandBack to book Page
828Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication December 2008 Hayes v Yukon College 67 CHRR D/408 (Evans, Tkachuk and Riseborough)Back to book Page
829Generally Federal Court of Appeal in Sheikholeslami v.Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (speaking to remedy of Unjust Dismissal under Canada Labour Code)Back to book Page
831Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication December 2008 Hayes v Yukon College 67 CHRR D/408 (Evans, Tkachuk and Riseborough)Back to book Page
833Cameron v. Nel-Gor Castle Nursing Home and Nelson (1984), 5 C.H.R.R. D/2170 (Cumming)
Torres v. Royalty Kitchen Ware Limited (1982), 3 C.H.R.R. D/858 (Cumming)
Back to book Page
834Divisional Court in Scott v Foster Wheeler 8  CHRR D/ 4179; Cameron v. Nel-Gor Castle Nursing Home and Nelson (1984), 5 C.H.R.R. D/2170 (Cumming); (Constance Backhouse) in December of 1996, in Naraine v Ford Motor Co. of Canada #5 28 CHRR D/267 (upheld in Divisional Court; reversed in Ontario Human Rights Commission v Naraine, but not on this issue); Wilson v Solis Mexican Foods, Grace J. of the Ontario Superior
Court; The Divisional Court in February of 2001, Ontario Human Rights Commission v Shelter Corporation (leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal denied)
Back to book Page
835Board of Inquiry Sanford v Koop (Gottheil)Back to book Page
838Board of Inquiry Torres v Royalty Kitchenware Ltd., (1982), 3 C.H.R.R. D/858 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (Cummings, now Mr. Justice Cummings of the Ontario Superior Court)Back to book Page
840The Charter in Quebec allows for an award of punitive damages where the conduct is reckless, that is, a standard less than intentional.
Manitoba allows for punitive damages where the questioned conduct shows malice or recklessness up to $5,000 and $25,000 against an individual or corporation respectively.
The Yukon also provides the same remedy of a punitive award without a stated cap where the questioned conduct was found to be malicious.
N.W.T. allows for punitive damages up to a cap of $10,000. Nunavut has no set maximum but its statute allows for such incremental damages where the conduct again shows malice or reckless behaviour.
Saskatchewan allows for an incremental award where the behaviour fits the pattern of a conduct meriting a punitive award by behaving “wilfully and recklessly” yet places a cap on the total award of compensatory and punitive damages at $20,000.
The Canadian Human Rights Act does not use the precise vocabulary of “punitive damages” but the Act allows for an increased damage award of “special compensation” up to a further sum of $20,000 when the conduct in question is wilful and malicious.
Back to book Page
841B.C. requires the complaint to be filed and that the employer is aware of this. HRTO Lewis v Lakeridge Health (Bhabha)Back to book Page
84515,000 was made by the HRTO in Smith v Menzies Chrysler (Chadha) decision, in favour of a male applicant. His employment was lost due to the reprisal.Back to book Page
846Such was the result in the HRTO decision of Morgan v Herman Miller (Debane) in which the reprisal claim resulted in a lost income claim of 14 months and the substantive claim was dismissed.Back to book Page
847For Ontario claims only, by 46.3(1) of the Code.Back to book Page
848The remedy discussed is the general reprisal remedy for retaliatory action taken against the complainant for using or threatening (apart from BC) to use the statutory remedy. “Sexual reprisal” for not submitting to the solicitations of the harasser is sexual harassment.Back to book Page
849Compliant with the Amendments to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act effective September 8, 2016 by Bill 132 Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act and (2) by S. 247.4(1) Canada Labour Code Sexual Harassment Policy and (3) NWT Occupational Health and Safety Sexual Harassment Regulations 34(1), (4) the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations of Saskatchewan (harassment) and (5) Employment Standards Act, PEI section 27 Sexual Harassment.Back to book Page
850As required by S. 247.4(1) Canada Labour CodeBack to book Page
851As required by the OHSA and Employment Standards Act, PEI section 27Back to book Page
852As required by above and OHSA.Back to book Page