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
Law of Work Archive

Garrie v. Janus Joan Reconsideration: A New Violation of HRC occurs with Each New Discriminatory Pay Cheque

by David Doorey October 17, 2012
written by David Doorey October 17, 2012

Thankfully, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has taken the unusual step of overturning one of its own decisions in the reconsideration decision in a case called Garrie v. Janus Joan.  Here is the reconsideration decision.
I criticized the original decision when it was released back in January 2012.  It was a head scratcher to me, though I received various comments from lawyers suggesting the decision was decided correctly, so obviously my view was not shared by all.
This was the case in which an employer (Janus) paid an employee with a disability (Garrie) $1 per hour (later increased to $1.25), while it paid non-disabled workers in the same position minimum wage or higher.  This arrangement continued for years, until in October 2009, when Garrie was dismissed while non-disabled workers were kept on.  In November 2009, she filed a Human Rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in both the cause of dismissal and the discriminatory pay practise through the life of the employment.
She lost the claim based on discriminatory pay during her employment because the Tribunal ruled it was out of time, not filed within one year of the “incident”.  The Tribunal’s theory was that in fact there had only been one breach of the Code, on the first pay cheque when Garrie was paid $1 back in the 1990s, and that every paycheque after that, for the next decade, constitutes simply a continuation of damages.  Moreover, this was not a case in which section 34(1)(b) would apply, since an ongoing discriminatory pay practice is not a “series of incidents”.
I thought that made for very bad policy.  I said then: “Under this approach, an employer is safe to discriminate in wages on the basis of disability forever, as long as the disabled person doesn’t know to file a complaint within the first year.  Make sense to you?”
Thankfully, this is the part of the decision that has just been overturned.  Read Section 34:

34.(1)  If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a)      within one year after the incidents to which the application relates;

or (b)     if there was series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

The reconsideration panel ruled that ongoing payment of a discriminatory wage is a “series of incidents”, and not a single act of discrimination.  As such, the last alleged breach took place on her last pay cheque, with the result that the complaint about her discriminatory pay was filed within the year time limit.  The Tribunal said this:

… while they may ultimately stem from an employment contract, issues of ongoing wage payment are not static. As we have already explained, they involve the fresh and ongoing step of exchanging labour for pay.

Surely that must be correct.  Each time an employer issues a pay cheque as consideration for labour just recently performed, they are commiting a new act that mustn’t violate the Human Rights Code.  Does anyone disagree with that conclusion and believe that the original panel is correct?
The result of the reconsideration decision is that the complaint about the $1 compensation for the period prior to the termination can now go forward. The Tribunal ruled it didn’t have enough evidence to decide the merits of that complaint, so I assume more litigation would be necessary to decide what a non-discriminatory wage should have been.  This would presumably be based on what non-disabled workers were being paid, wouldn’t it?  That was at least the minimum wage and sometimes more than that.
The reconsideration panel didn’t deal directly with what I thought was the most unusual part of the eariler decision.  That was the ruling that damages for the discriminatory termination (loss of future wages) was to be calculated on the basis of the unlawful $1.25 per hour wage rate.  I think that is just plain wrong, even if the wage complaint was untimely, for reasons I explained in my original post.  But that part of the decision must surely now be wrong too.  If the Tribunal rules that $1.25 wage rate was discriminatory, then damages for lost wages must be based on whatever non-discriminatory wage rate is found to be appropriate.  Right?

So, now what do people think about this case?

Did the Original Panel get the decision correct, or did the Reconsideration Panel?

Should the damages for wrongful termination be based on the rate she was being paid ($1.25 per hour) or the non-discriminatory wage rate?

1 comment
0
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.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Is Making Disgusting Comments on Facebook Cause for Dismissal from Your Job?
next post
Can Your Employer Fire You For Your Political Beliefs?

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

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

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 4 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
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

Not seen comparable stats for Canada.There are terminations, but also better laws in most Canadian jurisdictions, including

- remedial certification
- interim reinstatement
- card-check/quick votes

“1 in 5 workers in US is fired for organizing a union” https://onlabor.org/labor-law-reform-is-needed-for-unions-to-succeed/

Reply on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Retweet on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Like on Twitter 1623103873161330688 1 Twitter 1623103873161330688
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.