Family status protection in Ontario
Family Day is a time to acknowledged and celebrate the value of families across Ontario. As a result of acknowledging this importance, in Ontario, your family status is a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the “Code”). This means employers are prohibited from discriminating against an individual on the grounds of family status.
What Does “Family Status” Mean?
The Code defines “family status” as “being in a parent and child relationship.” This can also mean a parent and child “type” of relationship, that may not be based on blood or adoption ties, but that is based on care, responsibility, and commitment. Examples include parents caring for children (also by adoption, fostering and step parenting), people caring for aging parents or relatives with disabilities.
People in a parent-child type relationship have a right to equal treatment in the workplace. Employers cannot discriminate in hiring, promotion, training, benefits, workplace conditions or termination because a person is caring for a family member.
Where workplace structures, policies, procedures or culture exclude or disadvantage persons with caregiving responsibilities, employers have a legal duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. Some examples of accommodation are:
- Providing flexible scheduling;
- Allowing employees to take leaves of absence to care for family members who are aging, ill or have a disability;
- Allowing alternative work arrangements.
What Are Examples of Workplace Accommodations?
A recent Ontario Human Rights Tribunal case provides an example of accommodation when it comes to family status.
In Cosentino v Octapharma Canada Inc., 2024 HRTO 860, the employee, Cosentino, was a sales representative. During the pandemic, Cosentino’s mother was diagnosed with cancer. As her primary caregiver Cosentino requested accommodation from her employer to work from home to fulfill her caregiving responsibilities. This was initially approved, however after one month she was put on a Performance Improvement Plan, requiring her to come into the office. Just weeks later she was terminated without cause.
The Tribunal found that that the employer’s actions constituted discrimination on the basis of family status and the employer failed to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship. In requiring Consentino to come into the head office, the employer left Consentino with no choice but to refuse this request, leading to her termination. The employer failed to engage in the accommodation process by not inquiring fully about Cosentino’s accommodation needs. The Tribunal also found that the termination amounted to reprisal under the Code. The Human Rights Tribunal awarded a total of $104,806.88 in damages as a result.
If you feel your employer has discriminated against you on the basis of family status, please contact Whitten & Lublin online or by phone at (416) 640-2667.
Author – Sophie Teversham