The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Common Law of EmploymentCOVID-19Employment RegulationHealth CareHuman RightsWrongful Dismissal

Can Human Rights Law Help Workers Fired for Supporting the Ottawa Insurrection?

by David Doorey February 18, 2022
written by David Doorey February 18, 2022

Written by David Doorey, York University

Last week, I considered the possibility that conservative governments in Canada might soon add “vaccine status” to the list of prohibited grounds in human rights legislation in order to protect anti-vaccine folks from discrimination at work.  Now conservative pundits (see here and here) are losing their minds because some workers are being fired for donating money to the Ottawa Occupiers and insurrectionists whose stated goal (see this insane MOU) was to overthrow the Liberal government.

This week, a worker employed as a communications officer in the Ontario government was terminated for donating $100 to the insurrectionists.  Almost certainly more people will be terminated in the coming days as folks scour and report on a leaked document listing all of the donors.  Others may be terminated for participating in the occupation.

Personally, I’m enjoying watching the political right becoming woke to the fact that our system of employment law allows employers basically free rein to fire employees for any or no reason at all.   In the normal course, conservatives resist laws that restrict employer freedom and “flexibility” to run their business as they like.  For example, rarely do you see conservative pundits arguing for stronger employee protections laws or easier access to unionization, which are the only two routes to restricting employer freedom to terminate employees for any reason they like.  Unions, because they bargain “just cause” provisions into their collective agreements, and legislation because it imposes explicit restrictions on employers’ otherwise complete freedom to terminate employees for any reason at all.

However, when it comes to employees being fired for giving money to a motley crew of people hoping to overthrow a Liberal government, the conservative punditry is suddenly all about workers’ rights and the injustice of employer freedom.  Fantastic!

Does Human Rights Law Protect Donors or Participants in the Protests?

The most interesting legal angle regarding the termination of donors to the insurrectionists is whether these people already have a human rights route to challenge the termination.  The argument is that donating money to the convoy is a form of political speech that is protected by the prohibited ground of “political opinion” or “political belief” that is found in human rights legislation across Canada.  Every jurisdiction in Canada prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of political belief , except for Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, the federal jurisdiction, and Nunavut.  Workers who lose their jobs in these latter 5 jurisdictions have no human rights complaint available to them, so the human rights argument won’t help the Ontario government staffer fired last week (Does she have a Charter “freedom of expression” argument?).  However, a donor who is terminated from their job in Manitoba, BC, or the Maritimes might have grounds for a human rights complaint.

In those jurisdictions where “political belief” is a prohibited ground, tribunals have adopted a broad and liberal interpretation of the meaning of “political”.  It clearly includes partisan support for a particular political party, but it also extends beyond this to include comments, actions, and expressions of opinions on public policy and legislation.   For example, after reviewing decisions applying “political belief” in British Columbia’s Human Rights Code,  the BC Human Rights Tribunal summarized the ground as follows:

From these authorities, I conclude that to be a political belief protected by the Code, the belief need not be confined to a partisan political belief. It should involve public discourse on matters of public interest which involves or would require action at a governmental level. [Fraser v. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (2019)]

Insofar as a terminated employee can persuade a human rights adjudicator that the donation was intended to support a movement to end certain public health mandates and protest a particular political party (federal Liberals or Ontario PCs, for example), they would have a pretty strong argument that they have been discriminated against on the basis of their “political beliefs”.  Assuming that “political belief” applies here, the termination of a donor or participant in the convoy would violate human rights legislation unless the employer could somehow argue that removing the worker is a bona fide occupational requirement (a difficult argument one would think).

It will take some time for the dust to settle on this one.  We will need to watch how many employees are terminated for their support of the protests and whether any of them employed in a jurisdiction where “political belief” is included in the list of prohibited grounds challenge their termination.  From my vantage point, I would love to watch the political right cheer on a worker using the human rights machinery to challenge employer freedom and prerogative. That will be a fantastic spectacle.  Stay tuned.

0 comment
2
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

previous post
Will Conservatives Add “Vaccine Status” to Human Rights Legislation?
next post
The Problem With Ontario’s Proposed Gig Worker Law Exposed

You may also like

Is Memorial University Illegally Preventing Workers from Joining...

February 2, 2023

What Might a Right to Strike for Non-Union...

December 16, 2022

Lessons for the Railway Showdown from a Victory...

November 30, 2022

Why Gig Workers Are NOT Independent Contractors: A...

September 19, 2022

CUPW’s Unfair Labour Practice Complaint Against Uber Raises...

September 16, 2022

How Canadian Unions Responded to Vaccine Mandates, Protests,...

March 17, 2022

Reforming Non-Compete Law: A Cross Border Perspective

March 3, 2022

The Problem With Ontario’s Proposed Gig Worker Law...

February 28, 2022

Will Conservatives Add “Vaccine Status” to Human Rights...

February 9, 2022

Is UFCW’s Mysterious “Agreement” With Uber Lawful?

January 27, 2022

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
1h

It’s crazy that fast food restaurants include non-competes in employment contracts for cooks and front line staff to stop them from leaving.

Never mind whether it’s legal—in Canada, those clauses are definitely not enforceable—it’s just sleazy. Terrible ethics.

Sandeep Vaheesan @sandeepvaheesan

Nice!

Reply on Twitter 1623168822235615232 Retweet on Twitter 1623168822235615232 5 Like on Twitter 1623168822235615232 9 Twitter 1623168822235615232
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
1h

President Biden calls for passage of #PROAct

Act bans employer captive audience anti-union meetings;

Expands def of “employee” to capture essentially what we call “dependent contractors” in Canada;

Increase penalties for unfair labor practices;

Doesn’t adopt card-check.

Steven Greenhouse @greenhousenyt

President Biden: "I'm so sick and tired of companies breaking the law when workers are seeking to unionize"

Reply on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Retweet on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Like on Twitter 1623164729530191874 7 Twitter 1623164729530191874
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.