Employment Law: Case Study Analysis

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

EMPLOYMENT LAW
1
SCENARIO 1:
1. The relevant statute applied in the given scenario is the Canadian Human Rights Act
1976-771 and the Human Rights Code2.
2. The legal basis of the complaint made by Harriet can be the violation of section 3(1)
of the Canadian Human Rights Act3 for discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. It also violates section 5 of the Human Rights Code4.
3. As per the facts of the case, it is seen that EM gives housing facility to the persons
having developmental disabilities. Though the residents of the home can be of any
religion but only staff members belonging to Christian religion were hired by EM.
Further, EM also made a provision that required its staff to sign a contract having
‘Lifestyle and Morality Standard’ which provided the staffs to engage in homosexual
relationships. This forms a valid employment contract of the employer with the
employee.
On 2015, Harriet was hired by EM to work as a support worker. Her duties
include cleaning, cooking, doing laundry and also taking other staffs on outing.
However, from the facts of the case, it is not known whether she has signed the
‘Lifestyle and Morality standard’. If she has signed it, she will be bound by it. Hence
after three years, when she entered into same sex relation, she violated the
employment contract. However, if she had not signed the contract, then also she will
be bound by it as she working like an employee of EM and like all other staffs, she
will also be bound by the terms and conditions of the employment contract.
1 The Canadian Human Rights Act 1976-77.
2 Human Rights Code 1990.
3 The Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 3(1).
4 Human Rights Code, s.5.

EMPLOYMENT LAW
2
Further, EM can also raise the defences under section 24 of the Human Rights
Code5 which states that right of equal treatment as given in section 5 of the said Code6
will not be infringed when such discrimination is reasonable as well as bonafide due
to the employment nature. Thus this can be raised as a defence by the employer.
Further, it can claim that she has also violated contract of employment signed by it.
4. The counter arguments that can be put forwarded by Harriet that she was subjected to
discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation. It is provided in the section 5 of
the Human Right Code. She was deprived of the right of equal employment.
5. From the facts of case enumerated in the scenario 1, it can be opined that Harriet is
likely to be successful in her case with EM as the act of the latter clearly shows
breach of section 5 of the Code7. The Human Rights Code prevents any kind of
discrimination against the employees on seventeen grounds mainly out of which there
are factors like sexual orientation and sex
Scenario 2:
1. As per the facts provided in the given scenario, it is seen that Employment Standards
Act8 can be referred to in this case. Apart from this, the common law principle of
vicarious liability can also be referred here.
2. The ESA9 provides the standard for the employees who are working in Ontario. It
also provides the rights and duties of the employers as well as employees in the
5 Human Rights Code, s.24.
6 Human Rights Code, s.5.
7 Human Rights Code, s.5.
8 Employment Standards Act, 2000.
9 Employment Standards Act 2000.