mt_ignore
Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer
jobsinlaw.ca

Editorial: Is the workplace microwave a human rights matter?

Do human rights rules cover the food we heat up in the microwave at work?

Editorial Obiter with Glenn Kauth
Editorial Obiter with Glenn Kauth
Can an employer dictate the type of hijab a staff member can wear?
Those are among the interesting questions explored in a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruling, Saadi v. Audmax, that resulted in a court decision on a judicial review application this month.

Seema Saadi launched the case after her employer, Audmax Inc., fired her from her job as an intake settlement worker. Audmax is a company that receives public funding to run programs aimed at diverse ethnic and religious communities.

As HRTO adjudicator Faisal Bhabha noted, “the evidence establishes that discord in the office preceded the applicant’s hire,” including distrust over an incident in which a Muslim woman claimed she overheard a colleague making disparaging remarks about her appearance.

The case was very complicated and involved a number of issues at the workplace, but part of Saadi’s allegations of discrimination centred on Audmax’ microwave policy, which said that due to “food allergies and odour from some food, please refrain from or strictly limit the use of the Microwave [sic] for foods that present same.” Saadi, who is Muslim, claimed the policy “had an adverse discriminatory effect,” Bhabha noted.

In another instance, Saadi complained about the company’s dress code, which she had gotten into trouble for violating by wearing, among other things, a cap.

The cap, Saadi said, was a form of hijab she had bought online from Indonesia that she thought would be more elegant. Bhabha found the employer, Maxcine Telfer, had gone too far in dictating what style of hijab she would allow.

The Human Rights Code, according to Bhabha, guarantees people’s right to choose the form of religious headdress they wear.

In the end, Bhabha ordered the company to pay Saadi $15,000 for the violations in addition to $21,070 in lost wages. But in the Divisional Court ruling this month, Justice Anne Molloy, writing for a three-judge panel, was rather scathing in her criticism of the HRTO decision and overturned the award.

Part of the issues focused on procedural matters stemming from Bhabha’s refusal to accept the evidence of a defence witness. But she was also critical of the findings of discrimination.

On the microwave, for example, Molloy said Bhabha made no findings as to what food the company’s policy prevented Saadi from reheating.

“The reasons are so sparse on the factual underpinnings for this aspect of the
decision that it is impossible to follow the pathway by which the adjudicator came to his conclusion of discrimination,” Molloy, who was similarly critical of the findings about the dress code, wrote.

Regardless of the ultimate validity of either side, it’s clear that the HRTO ruling went too far. But hopefully misguided politicians like Ontario Tory Leader Tim Hudak won’t use such decisions as fodder for their bid to abolish the tribunal, which is part of a human rights system that has improved our society.

At the same time, what’s unfortunate is that cases like Saadi come about in the first place. At a workplace whose mandate deals precisely with issues of diversity, one would hope those involved would have prevented the problems in the first place or been able to deal with them without going all the way to an HRTO hearing.
- Glenn Kauth

Comments   

+1 # scf 2011-02-02 13:10
"hopefully.... won’t use such decisions as fodder for their bid to abo lish the tribunal, which is part of a human rights system that has improved our society"

Are you kidding me? This is a travesty, and no innocent individual should be put through the ringer and threatened with seizure of her home, UNBELIEVABLY over the issue of food in the microwave and a cap on someone's head, for an employee that worked for ONLY 6 WEEKS! This is insane. There are numerous examples of crazy cases like this one, that prove that the HRT system of justice is perverted and completely debased by these crazy tribunals, whose judgements are far worse and far more threatening to individuals than any so-called crimes in the cases they hear.

Hire an individual for 6 weeks, fail to get along, and next thing you know you lose your house? In Canada? Horrifying!

There are plenty of examples like this. Defendants before this pseudo-court have absolutely no rights. These HRT pseudo courts must be shut down if Canada is to remain a free country. We already have a court system with thousands of years of legal inheritance. We don't need kangaroo courts that threaten our freedoms.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
-1 # anonymouse 2011-02-03 09:08
(Audmax Inc. v. Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, 2011 ONSC 315 (CanLII) — 2011-01-18
Divisional Court — Ontario). Interesting reading, and certainly warning that tribunals had better brush up on reasons based on fact and law. The $10000 cost award to the applicant I am sure Ms. Saadi did not anticipate.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
-1 # pig daddy 2011-02-03 17:45
Facts and law? Reasoning? I'm sure Courts will rule one day to disband themselves.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
-1 # Tim 2011-02-05 13:34
Abolish these lawless, racist tribunals and let courts decide these matters instead!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Tron 2011-02-13 16:00
"Abolish these lawless, racist tribunals and let courts decide these matters instead!"

Wow... you think Human Rights tribunals are racist?? Take these issues to the courts and you'll find a whole new level of racism unleashed.

You guys are just angry because you don't agree with the ruling. Instead of looking at the merits of the case and seeing the fact that there was a vulnerable woman here who was completely at the mercy of these arbitrary rules the employer had, you blame the very human rights tribunals that actually have the guts to tell it like it is and pinpoint these issues that we all like to ignore and pretend don't exist in our workplaces.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

Add comment



More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

Did the Federal Court of Appeal get it right last week in upholding a ruling that found Métis people to be Indians under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act?
Yes
No