Michele Glassford
As always, the answer to this question is “yes”, “no” and “it depends”.
“Yes” — “language” is not a specifically prohibited ground of discrimination under Human Rights legislation in any jurisdiction in Canada except for Quebec and the Yukon.
In the Yukon, language is specifically included under “linguistic background” which is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Act.
Under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedom, every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his or her human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on “language”, amongst other grounds. The Charter is a fundamental law that takes precedence over all other laws in Québec.
In addition, in Québec, section 46 of the Charter of the French language prohibits employers from making the obtaining of an employment or office dependent on knowledge, or a specific level of knowledge, of a language other than French (French the sole official language of Quebec), unless the nature of the duties requires such knowledge. The employer can invoke the argument that performance of the duties requires knowledge of a language other than French, but the employer will have the burden of proving that such is the case. Section 45 of the Charter state that employers are strictly prohibited from dismissing, laying off, demoting or transferring a member of their staff for the sole reason that he or she only speaks French, that he or she has insufficient knowledge of a particular language other than French, or that he or she has demanded that a right arising under the Charter be respected.
“No” — although not specifically listed as a prohibited ground in most canadian jurisdictions, discrimination against an employee related to the language he or she speaks may be covered by other prohibited grounds such as national or ethnic origin, ancestry, or race, and would therefore be prohibited. In addition, a requirement, act, policy or qualification which may not be discriminatory on its face, may still have discriminatory results when applied if it results in a discriminatory effect on a group identified by a prohibited ground, referred to as “constructive discrimination”. For example, Ontario accepts complaints on the grounds of ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin and race. New Brunswick and the Northwest Territories will accept language-related complaints filed on the basis of ancestry, although not an enumerated ground.
“It depends” — although an employer cannot discriminate against an employee because of the language he or she speaks, an employer can require employees to speak English (or any other language) if it is a “reasonable” and “bona fide” requirement of the job in the circumstances and the employee cannot be accommodated without undue hardship to the employer. Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals have recognized that a proficiency in English may very well be a bona fide occupational requirement (“BFOR”), but the requirement for English proficiency and the degree of proficiency must still objectively be shown to be a BFOR and in good faith.
Employers must be mindful of the following:
Michele Glassford
Editor of Human Resources PolicyPro
published by First Reference Inc
Accommodating employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship under human rights legislation can be a complicated task. It’s important to make sure the accommodation process goes smoothly and the employee can focus on working as efficiently as possible, but employers may not be sure about what kinds of questions to ask disabled employees in order to meet their needs.
Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD
The Canadian Human Rights Commission recently posted a policy on its website concerning how it interprets and applies section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) when it receives an inquiry or complaint. The purpose of section 13 of the Act is to balance Canadians’ rights to equality and freedom of expression with respect to hate messages, as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The parliamentary record indicates that section 13 was initially included in the legislation to address activities of individuals and groups who used the telephone system to disseminate hate messages. In December 2001, parliament amended the CHRA by adding section 13(2), which makes it clear that Internet hate messages come under the jurisdiction of the commission.
Read the whole article on Slaw.ca.
Marie-Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor
I’ve discussed workplace gossip here before, and what bosses can do to prevent it or at least reduce the potential harm, but there are a couple of hyper-modern developments that I didn’t get into: reality television and the Internet. These two things have created a culture of “sharing”, for lack of a better word, that encourages people at play or work to divulge the most mundane and private details of their lives to others—the kind of information that one previously might only have shared with family or best friends.
Adam Gorley