Source: https://hicksmorley.com/2014/07/29/reaching-out-sixth-edition/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:11:39+00:00

Document:
With summer heating up, burning human resources issues continue to smolder as well. At Hicks Morley, we hope that you are enjoying the summer sunshine and we welcome you to the Summer 2014 Edition of Reaching Out, designed to address a number of relevant practical issues of particular interest and application to management in the Social Service Sector.
In our first article, for those of our readers that are Developmental Service Agencies, did you know that the Quality Assurance Measures regulations established under the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act set out special rules for how you must proceed where you learn of potential employee misconduct related to abuse? In this edition of Reaching Out, Leanne Fisher of our Ottawa Office outlines the requirements of the Quality Assurance Measures and how they may impact your organization and your management of the employment-related investigation and discipline process.
Picking up on the theme of investigations, Jacqueline Luksha of our Toronto office reviews whether or not there is a free-standing obligation to investigate complaints of discrimination and harassment under the Human Rights Code and how the obligation to investigate may impact your handling of complaints as an employer or service provider.
Many social service agencies are regulated by the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010. Retirement parties, birthday celebrations, holiday parties, Board meeting meals and travel expenses are commonplace – but can you claim them as expenses? In her article, Brenda Bowlby (Retd) of our Toronto office guides you through the potential minefield of claiming “hospitality expenses” which are subject to a Directive issued by the Management Board of Cabinet.
The challenges of recognizing and addressing the accommodation of mental health disabilities is one that all agencies grapple with, both in the role of employer and as a service provider. Mental health disabilities are often not “visible” and thus present unique challenges which may necessitate a different response than when dealing with physical disabilities. In our final article, Samantha Crumb of our Toronto office reviews the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s recently issued policy on the accommodation of mental health disabilities.
As always, it is our hope that you find our quarterly Reaching Out newsletter useful and informative. It is our aim to focus on issues that are topical and of interest to the Social Service Sector specifically. Please do not hesitate to contact me at lauri-reesor@hicksmorley.com (or your regular Hicks Morley lawyer) with suggestions for future article topics or questions about the articles appearing in this Summer Edition. Enjoy the rest of your summer and we will be back in touch with the Fall Edition.
the duty to impose any employee sanctions or discipline without unreasonable delay that would prejudice the employee.
The Quality Assurance Measures regulations established under the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act (“QAM”), make special rules for how developmental service agencies in Ontario (“Agencies”) must proceed where they learn of potential employee misconduct which would amount to both ‘abuse’ as defined by the QAM and a criminal offence as defined under the Criminal Code of Canada. In particular, pursuant to the QAM, an Agency cannot initiate its own investigation into such matters, until such time as a police investigation into the matter has been completed.
loss or destruction of property.
The Criminal Code prohibits many of the same types of conduct – including physical assaults, threats of assaults, sexual offences, criminal negligence (which may include neglect situations), theft and fraud. There are others.
There is a significant overlap between ‘abuse’ as defined by the QAM and the offences proscribed by the Criminal Code. Therefore, Agencies which suspect or become aware of ‘abuse’ allegations are often unable to initiate an investigation into the employment/labour law aspect of the allegations until after a police investigation has been completed.
The requirement that an Agency defer its internal investigation in cases of alleged abuse most certainly serves the important purpose of ensuring that a police investigation is not contaminated by the Agency seeking out information or questioning witnesses and so on. However, practically speaking, deferring an internal employment investigation until the completion of a police investigation creates certain challenges for Agencies. That is, an Agency may be placed in the situation of having some information pertaining to alleged abuse – perhaps enough to cause it to believe that the employee should be removed from active employment – but not enough information to determine what ultimate result should flow in the circumstances (e.g. discharge? disciplinary suspension?).
To date, there have been no arbitration or court cases which clarify the rights of an Agency or an employee during the period between the time the Agency learns of the alleged abusive conduct and the time that the police complete their investigation. This time period can vary greatly – from days, to weeks, to months – and, in some cases, longer.
the employee’s interests in maintaining his or her livelihood during any police investigation, his or her right to due process and his or her right to be presumed innocent.
Depending on the nature of the allegations, the employee’s job duties and the evidence in the Agency’s possession at the time the police investigation commences, potential options for dealing with an employee against whom allegations of abuse have been levied (but which have not been investigated by the Agency) may include increased supervision, temporary removal of certain job duties, temporary transfer to administrative duties, suspension with or without pay and, in rare cases, discharge from employment.
Whatever option an Agency ultimately chooses to pursue, as the employer it must be prepared to justify its action by proving that a less intrusive option was not reasonable in the circumstances (having regard to the balancing of interests, noted above). Care must also be taken to ensure that any ‘interim’ measures imposed by an Agency pending the completion of a police investigation are positioned and communicated in a manner which avoids allegations of ‘double jeopardy’ going forward – i.e. that the employer has imposed discipline twice for the same misconduct. Finally, any action taken by an Agency in response to allegations of abuse, but before it has been permitted to investigate the allegations, must always be tempered by a recognition that the allegations may, in fact, not be true.
the employer’s communication about, and resolution of, the complaint.
There are multiple cases in which the Tribunal, having found that discrimination occurred, has made separate damage awards specifically for the failure to respond to and address a complaint properly.
Recent cases have raised the question of whether there is a free-standing duty to investigate. Scaduto v. Insurance Search Bureau involved a situation where the employer had failed to investigate a complaint but where no discrimination or harassment had occurred. The Tribunal considered whether there could still be a breach of the Human Rights Code (“Code“) in light of the fact there was no failure to provide a workplace free from discrimination.
What the Scaduto case makes clear is that the Code is not contravened by (and no liability arises from) the failure to investigate discrimination where no discrimination has in fact occurred. However, an employer/service provider’s failure to take reasonable steps to investigate a complaint of discrimination can contravene the Code when that failure causes or contributes to discrimination which is found to have occurred.
The Tribunal recently made additional comments consistent with the reasoning in Scaduto in Toop v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, stating that it is clear from the origin of the duty to investigate in the employment context that there is “not a free-standing obligation under the Code. Rather, it is the means by which an employer ensures that it is complying with its obligation to provide a discrimination-free work environment.” The Tribunal went on to state that the corollary is that where an employer is found to have breached the Code by failing to investigate, the Tribunal is really finding that the employer failed to provide a discrimination-free workplace.
This provides context to the Scaduto decision. In that case, the applicant was no longer in the workplace and therefore it could not be said that his right to be free from discrimination in the workplace was infringed by the failure to investigate. In Falodun v. Andorra, the Tribunal applied Scaduto for this proposition and found that a complaint regarding a failure to accommodate raised no reasonable prospect of success because the employee was no longer in the workplace.
The key takeaway from the jurisprudence is that if the employer or service provider fails to investigate a complaint, it runs the risk of exacerbating the discrimination and increasing its liability. Therefore, absent absolute certainty that discrimination did not occur, the employer/service provider should always carry out a reasonable investigation. It will rarely be the case where an employer or service provider can state with certainty that discrimination did not occur without commencing an investigation to some extent. That being said, the extent of the investigation can be proportionate to the nature and complexity of the issues involved.
clearly communicate its actions to the complainant.
This will help ensure that the policies are working, the Code duties are being fulfilled, and that if the employer/service provider finds itself before the Tribunal, it is well prepared to prove either that no discrimination in fact occurred or, if it did, it was addressed appropriately.
Organizations which are regulated by the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010 (“Act”) are subject to a Directive issued by the Management Board of Cabinet which obliges them to make rules regarding expenses for meals, travel and hospitality and which sets out requirements for those rules. A “Q & A” document, also issued by the government, assists in interpreting the Directive.
However, there is a lack of clarity in the Directive and the Q & A regarding what constitutes “hospitality” and what can be claimed as a “hospitality” expense or otherwise.
any of the Ontario government ministries, agencies and public entities covered by the OPS Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive (available on the Ministry of Government Services website).
The expense rules must provide that functions involving only those people in the organizations listed above are not considered hospitality functions and cannot be reimbursed. This means that hospitality may never be offered solely for the benefit of anyone covered by this directive, or by the OPS Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive. Examples would be: office social events, retirement parties and holiday lunches.
This means that any social functions (e.g. retirement parties, holiday parties, etc.) held for the benefit only of employees of the organization cannot be paid for as a hospitality expense. In fact, the Directive and Q & A make clear that such expenses should not be paid for out of public funds at all. This is to be contrasted with an event to which members of the public are invited: for example, the organization’s Annual General Meeting, if the public is invited to this meeting, or a public celebration of the organization’s anniversary event to which members of the public are invited (even if employees or Directors also attend).
Any decisions about expenses should be made with due consideration for the prudent and responsible use of taxpayer dollars, and for government direction on accountability and transparency. BPS organizations should also bear in mind the potential for public and media attention.
We recommend that every BPS organization should have rules in place for all types of expenses. This would mean that, if challenged, the organization could demonstrate accountability and provide a sound business case for the expense.
It will be a prudent step, therefore, for every BPS organization to put into place not only rules regarding meals, travel and hospitality expenses (which should be in place in all BPS organizations by now), but also rules regarding other business expenses which will be paid for by the organization.
In June 2014, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) issued a new policy entitled Policy on Preventing Discrimination based on Mental Health Disabilities and Addictions (“Policy”). The Policy provides guidance to employers, service providers and accommodation providers on managing and accommodating individuals with mental health disabilities or addiction issues. In this article, we focus on the Policy’s interpretation of an organization’s obligations as a service provider to these individuals under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code“).
The Policy recognizes people with mental health issues or addictions are a “diverse group, and experience disability, impairment and societal barriers in many different ways.” These types of disabilities are often episodic and/or “invisible” or kept hidden from others; however, they are deserving of the same protection afforded to more easily visible disabilities.
his or her mental health disability or addiction was a factor in the adverse impact.
Interestingly, the Policy includes, in its discussion of the more widely known forms of discrimination, a lengthy discussion of what it refers to as “mental health profiling,” which is akin to the more widely known concept of “racial profiling.” Mental health profiling is defined as “any action undertaken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about a person’s mental health or addiction rather than on reasonable grounds, to single out a person for greater scrutiny or different treatment.” The Policy notes that individuals with perceived or known mental health or addiction issues are often stereotyped as being a risk to public security and safety in the absence of objective evidence to support this perception. It draws on the factors used in the racial profiling case law as relevant to consider whether profiling based on mental health was a reason for any alleged mistreatment.
The Policy emphasizes that objective evidence or criteria must be used to assess the risk posed by an individual, rather than blanket assumptions based on a person’s mental health disability or perceived mental health issues. At the same time, it recognizes that it is not discriminatory to respond to the actual behaviour of individuals with mental health disabilities that causes risk.
bear the cost of any required medical information or documentation beyond the initial documentation required to establish a need for accommodation.
As part of this accommodation process, the service provider may need to educate itself about the nature of an individual’s disability, take steps to resolve any tension or conflict with others whose cooperation is required to implement an accommodation, and dispel any misperceptions or stereotypes that others may have about persons with disabilities.
A measure that would not otherwise constitute undue hardship based on cost or health and safety may not be required if it would fundamentally alter the nature of the service or would still not allow the person to fulfil the essential duties attending the exercise of the right.
A service provider’s duty to accommodate may end where the person seeking accommodation fails to participate in or cooperate with the accommodation process. This may include refusal to comply with reasonable requests for information to show and/or meet their accommodation needs or refusal to take part in developing accommodation solutions.
There may be rare instances where an accommodation request cannot be implemented in whole or in part because doing so would create a conflict with the legal rights of others.
The Policy briefly addresses the interaction of the Ontario legislative scheme governing matters relating to mental capacity and the Code. It emphasizes that while many individuals have the ability to make important life decisions, some individuals may, due to their disability, be deemed to lack such capacity in certain situations.
As a result, capacity should be measured on a case-by-case basis, “with an eye to the purpose of the relationship or transaction in question.” Further, service providers should endeavour to create environments designed to facilitate participation in decision-making by, for example, offering plain-language self-help resources, or involving a support network to assist an individual in making a decision. Finally, before determining that a person lacks capacity, a service provider must explore potential accommodation options to the point of undue hardship.
The Commission’s mission is to “promote, protect and advance human rights” by, among other things, developing policies and conducting public education with respect to the rights protected under the Code. To this end, the Commission has created a number of the policies reflecting its interpretation of various requirements under the Code, including the Policy. The Tribunal may consider any applicable Commission policy in its decision-making process and is, in fact, mandated to do so if a party or intervenor requests it. Furthermore, when the Commission is a party or an intervenor in a matter before the Tribunal, it may ask the Tribunal to refer its decision to the Divisional Court if the Commission believes that the decision is inconsistent with one or more of its policies. The Divisional Court would then determine whether the Commission’s interpretation of the Code should prevail.
As the Policy identifies at the outset, research estimates that “almost one in five Canadian adults will experience a mental illness or addiction at some point in their lives.” While the Policy is not strictly binding on the Tribunal, the Commission’s interpretation of the Code offers helpful guidance to service providers for identifying and managing individuals with mental health disabilities or addictions.
 Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 at ss. 5(1) and (2).
 Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30 (CanLII) at para. 51 and Abdallah v. Thames Valley District School Board, 2008 HRTO 230 (CanLII).
 Harriott v. National Money Mart, 2010 HRTO 353 (CanLII).
 Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc., supra.
 Scaduto v. Insurance Search Bureau, 2014 HRTO 250 (CanLII) (“Scaduto“).
 Toop v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2014 HRTO 145 (CanLII).
 Falodun v. Andorra, 2014 HRTO 322 (CanLII).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.