BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Lancaster House - ECPv6.15.4//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Lancaster House
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://lancasterhouse.com
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Lancaster House
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20230312T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20231105T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Toronto
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20230312T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20231105T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230412T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230413T151500
DTSTAMP:20260414T142606
CREATED:20230317T015303Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230405T231255Z
UID:6327-1681302600-1681398900@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:National Pensions Conference
DESCRIPTION:Conference Co-Chairs\n\n \nRoss Gascho\nPensions Counsel\nFasken \n\n\n \nBalraj Dosanjh\nPensions Counsel\nCavalluzzo LLP \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nLesha Van Der Bij\nChief Operating Officer and Founder\nOptimize Legal \n\n\n \nLiz Doughty\nChief Executive Officer Special Forces\nPension Plan Corporation \n\n\n \nGary Yee\nNational Representative – Pension & Airline Coordinator\nCanadian Union of Public Employees \n\n\n \nRandy Bauslaugh\nPensions & Benefits Counsel\nBauslaugh Law \n\n\nWednesday\, April 12\, 2023Introductory remarks by Co-Chairs 12:30 p.m. – 12:35 p.m. ET \nPanel 1 - Pension Fund Forecasts: Expert insights into recent trends\, including the impact of inflation12:35 p.m. – 1:50 p.m. ET\nPension Fund Forecasts: Expert insights into recent trends\, including the impact of inflation\n\n\n \nMary Kate Archibald\nPrincipal\nEckler Ltd. \n\n\n \nAaron Bennett\nCIO\nUniversity Pension Plan \n\n\nCanada and other major economies are currently confronted with the highest levels of inflation since the 1980s. Persistent above-target inflation affects the pension industry in myriad ways\, including through upward pressure on interest rates\, lower liabilities for defined benefit plans\, and decreasing returns in the bond markets. Inflation also affects the retirement income security of pension plan members. The risk of a recession in 2023 looms large\, as any recession would affect both plan returns and the insolvency risk of sponsoring employers. \nIn this session\, leading experts will explore the challenges posed by the current and predicted economic climate\, and address the following topics: \n\nWhat are the latest economic forecasts\, including the outlook for inflation\, interest rates\, unemployment\, and growth?\nWhat challenges does inflation pose for pension plan administrators generally?\nHow do the current economic conditions affect different types of pension plans and their members (e.g.\, defined benefit vs. defined contribution; public sector vs. private sector)? What are the implications of any divergence in these effects?\nWhat strategies can pension plan administrators take to manage pension plans and pension plan investments in an economic downturn? What role do administrators’ statutory and fiduciary obligations play in this regard?\nWhat have governments and regulators done to assist pension plans and their members in coping with the current economic conditions? What more can be done?\n\nBreak 1:50 p.m. – 1:55 p.m. ET \nPanel 2 - Keeping Posted on Pensions: A review of recent caselaw1:55 p.m. - 3:10 a.m. ET\nKeeping Posted on Pensions: A review of recent caselaw\n\n\n \nLesha Van Der Bij\nChief Operating Officer and Founder\nOptimize Legal \n\n\n \nMichael Wolpert\nPensions counsel\nFasken \n\n\n \nBettina Quistgaard\nUnion counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\nThis panel explores significant court and tribunal decisions related to pensions. Topics to be addressed include plan amendments\, collective bargaining\, recovery of overpayments\, fiduciary duties\, shared risk plans\, family law\, surplus on wind-up\, and survivor benefits. Final selection of cases will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most important decisions.Break 3:10 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. ET \nPanel 3 - Proposed\, Pending\, Passed: An update on key developments in legislation and regulations3:15 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. PST\nProposed\, Pending\, Passed: An update on key developments in legislation and regulations\n\n\n \nPamela Odina\nPensions Counsel\nBrown Mills Klinck Prezioso LLP \n\n\n \nDavid Blair\nUnion Counsel\nVictory Square Law Office \n\n\nIn this session\, experts will review recent legislative and regulatory pension developments. Topics to be addressed include insolvency\, ESG (environmental\, social\, and governance) factors\, climate change risk\, borrowing by pension plans\, leverage\, correction of contribution errors\, defined benefit pension plan funding\, target benefit plans\, cyber risks\, and unclaimed property. The panel will discuss amendments to the federal Income Tax Act and to provincial pension legislation\, including in Saskatchewan and British Columbia\, as well as Bill C-228\, the proposed federal Pension Protection Act. Experts will explore draft regulatory guidance released recently by the Office for the Superintendent of Financial Institutions\, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario\, and the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities. Final selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most important legislative and regulatory developments.Day 1 closing remarks 4:30 p.m. – 4:35 p.m. ET \nThursday\, April 13Introductory remarks by Co-Chairs 12:30 p.m. – 12:35 p.m. ET \nPanel 4 - Going Green? Examining the evolving role of ESG approaches in pension planning and management12:35 p.m. - 1:50 p.m. ET\nPromoting Workplace Equity: Removing barriers\, promoting inclusion\, and identifying the promise and perils of big data\n\n\n \nChristie Stephenson\nExecutive Director\, Peter Dhillon Centre for Business Ethics\nUBC Sauder School of Business \n\n\n \nMurray Gold\nPensions Counsel\nKoskie Minsky \n\n\n \nRandy Bauslaugh\nPensions & Benefits Counsel\nBauslaugh Law \n\n\nEnvironmental\, social\, and governance (ESG) considerations have taken on heightened importance for pension plan sponsors and administrators. Recent international climate change conferences (COP26 and COP27) have committed national governments to climate-related actions including increasingly aggressive emissions reduction targets. At the same time\, environmental and social activism continues to place pressure on pension plan fiduciaries and other institutional investors to give greater weight to ESG factors in their decision-making. \nThe experts on this panel will consider the myriad challenges and opportunities presented by the evolving relationship between pension plans and ESG considerations\, addressing questions that include the following: \n\nHow has the national and global context relating to climate change evolved since the 2015 Paris Climate Accord? How have pension plan sponsors and administrators responded?\nTo what extent do pension plan administrators’ common law fiduciary duties require them to factor ESG considerations into their investment-related decision-making? Do those duties permit administrators to take ESG considerations into account for any purpose other than financial gain? Does the answer depend on plan terms or type of plan?\nHow have recent decisions from other jurisdictions addressed pension fiduciaries’ responsibilities in respect of ESG considerations?\nWhat are the current legislative and regulatory requirements regarding ESG disclosure\, and taking into account ESG considerations\, across Canadian jurisdictions? What changes are in prospect?\nWhat level of familiarity should pension plan board members have with ESG-related issues?\nWhat weight\, if any\, should be given to the views of pension plan members regarding the content of the plan’s investments? Is there scope for increasing activism by individuals or groups to force change in this regard?\n\nBreak 1:50 p.m. – 1:55 p.m. ET \nPanel 5 - Locking in Privacy Protections: Requirements and best practices for cybersecurity in pension administration1:55 p.m. – 3:10 p.m. ET\nLocking in Privacy Protections: Requirements and best practices for cybersecurity in pension administration\n\n\nEvan Howard\nChief Legal & Regulatory Affairs Officer\nCAAT Pension Plan\n\nDavid Bartucci\nHead Stakeholder Relations and Special Projects Pensions Financial Services\nRegulatory Authority of Ontario\n\nBenjamin Fung\nCanada Research Chair in Data Mining for Cybersecurity and School of Information Studies Professor\nMcGill University\n\nMichelle Desnoyers\nCorporate Information Security Officer\nAlberta Pensions Services Corporation\n\nPension plan administrators are major custodians of personal and financial information. As plans’ reliance on information technology (IT) infrastructure to store member data and process transactions increases\, so do the risks relating to cybersecurity. A cybersecurity incident affecting a pension plan has the potential to inflict significant legal and reputational consequences. More broadly\, regulators across Canada have signalled that administrators must actively monitor and manage cybersecurity risks. \nThis panel will examine the legal landscape on cybersecurity and propose strategies for assessing and mitigating cybersecurity risk. Questions to be addressed include the following: \n\nHow do pension plan administrators’ fiduciary duties interact with cybersecurity concerns? To what extent does pension benefits legislation impose additional requirements relating to cybersecurity?\nWhat bearing do federal and provincial privacy statutes have on plan administrators’ obligations in relation to cybersecurity risk? What impact would administrators face following from the proposed federal Digital Charter Implementation Act\, 2022?\nWhat regulatory guidance has been issued to date regarding cybersecurity for pension plans? What developments are on the horizon?\nHow should a prudent pension plan administrator assess a plan’s cybersecurity risk? From a governance perspective\, what governance policies and processes should be established to help manage this risk?\nWhat steps must a pension plan administrator take following a cybersecurity incident?\n\nDay 2 closing remarks – 3:10 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. ET \nCPDThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 6.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/national-pensions-conference/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/national-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20230417T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20230418T154500
DTSTAMP:20260414T142606
CREATED:20230317T232601Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240723T152317Z
UID:6372-1681718400-1681832700@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Toronto Human Rights and Accommodation Conference
DESCRIPTION:Conference Co-Chairs\n\n \nYasmeena Mohamed\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\n \nRishi Bandhu\nEmployer Counsel\nBandhu Law Professional Corporation \n\n\n \nMae J. Nam\nUnion Counsel\nRyder Wright Holmes Bryden Nam LLP \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nJeanie Theoharis\nAssociate Chair\nHuman Rights Tribunal of Ontario \n\n\n \nNathaniel Marshall\nEmployer Counsel and Workplace Investigator\nMarshall Workplace Law \n\n\n \nNatalie Jacyk\nSenior Human Rights Officer\nHuman Rights Office Toronto District School Board \n\n\n \nFridmar Facunda\nSupervisor\, Equity & Member Education Units\, OPSEU \n\n\n \nSaranjit Singh Cheema\nLegal Counsel\,\nLiUNA Ontario Provincial District Council \n\n\nMonday\, April 17\, 2023Breakfast and Registration – 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.\nIntroductory remarks by Co-Chairs – 9:00 a.m. – 9:10 a.m. \nPanel 1 - Human Rights Headlines: The latest caselaw and legislative developments 9:10 a.m. – 10:25 a.m. ET\nHuman Rights Headlines: The latest caselaw and legislative developments\n\n\n \nEsi Codjoe\nEmployer Counsel\nTurnpenney Milne LLP \n\n\n \nMatthew Horner\nCounsel\nOntario Human Rights Commission \n\n\n \nMatthew Hrycyna\nGrievance Officer\nOPSEU \n\n\nIn this session\, experts will review the most important legal developments of the past year and flag significant ongoing litigation and legislative reform. Topics to be addressed include discrimination\, harassment\, privacy\, and drug testing policies. Other updates to be discussed include the implementation of electronic monitoring policy requirements and the regulation of NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) in post-secondary sexual abuse allegations. Final selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most important developments. \nBreak 10:25 a.m. – 10:40 a.m. ET \nPanel 2 - Investigations Under the Magnifying Glass: A close look at significant developments 10:40 a.m. - 11:55 a.m. ET\nInvestigations Under the Magnifying Glass: A close look at significant developments\n\n\n \nNathaniel Marshall\nEmployer Counsel and Workplace Investigator\nMarshall Workplace Law \n\n\n \nKirsty Niglas-Collins\nUnion Counsel\nUnified LLP \n\n\n \nSharon Naipaul\nConsultant\, Mediator\, and Trainer\nStrategic Workplace Equity and Conflict Resolution Solutions \n\n\nWorkplace investigators often grapple with issues of bias\, fact-finding\, and confidentiality that may emerge during an investigation. In this session\, experts will discuss important developments in these areas\, in addition to practices and policies that safeguard fair and effective investigations: \n\nWhat lessons can be drawn from recent cases about the limits on an employer’s investigation\, taking into account the need to preserve a fair\, adequate\, and effective investigation process?\nHow do unconscious and implicit biases impact human rights investigations in the workplace? What can be done to avoid them?\nHow do investigators\, in the fact-finding and report-writing process\, address pervasive systemic discrimination in the workplace?\nHow does adopting a trauma-informed approach to conducting witness interviews affect the affect the nature of the investigation?\nHow should workplace parties address the challenges of conducting investigations in a remote work environment? Is there any proven or perceived benefit to conducting workplace investigations in-person?\nWhat are best practices for drafting investigation reports?\n\nLunch 11:55 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. \nPanel 3 - Disabilities that elude Diagnosis: Accommodating employees with Long COVID\, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome\, and other poorly understood conditions1:00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m. PST\nDisabilities that elude Diagnosis: Accommodating employees with Long COVID\, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome\, and other poorly understood conditions\n\n\n \nSimmy Sahdra\nEmployer Counsel\nMcCarthy Tetrault LLC \n\n\n \nDr. Alexandra Rendely\nSports Medicine Doctor\nUniversity Health Network Toronto Rehabilitation Clinic\n\n\n \nJustin Amaral\nUnion Counsel\nMorrison Watts \n\n\nWorkplace parties are familiar with applying principles regarding the duty to accommodate in cases of visible disabilities\, well-known conditions\, or conditions for which there exists a clear diagnostic test. However\, challenges arise when an employee seeks accommodation for a condition that eludes diagnosis. In this session\, experts will address questions such as: \n\nWhat are common medical conditions that elude diagnosis\, or that are considered “diagnoses of exclusion”? Why does “Long COVID” fall within this list?\nWhat medical evidence is an employer legally permitted to request to establish an employee’s right to accommodation in such cases? Is a definitive diagnosis\, or “objective evidence\,” necessary to establish an invisible disability?\nHow can employers and unions effectively formulate requests for medical information in cases where an employee’s condition cannot be confirmed using a clinician’s diagnostic test? What types of information should employees request from doctors in such cases?\nWhen sick leave abuse is a concern\, how can an employer distinguish between employees who have genuine\, difficult-to-diagnose disabilities\, and employees who are malingering? When will an employer be justified in seeking further information\, including a specialist’s report or an independent medical examination?\nHow might stereotypes and stigma associated with these medical conditions contribute to the challenge of providing accommodation?\nHow might eligibility requirements for short- and long-term disability insurance programs pose additional complications in such cases? Where an employee has been denied disability benefits\, and that denial is later held to be improper\, which party will be liable for the denial?\nWhat types of accommodations may be of assistance to an employee suffering from persistent symptoms such as pain\, fatigue\, or cognitive difficulties? For example\, what will help individuals coping with Long COVID? How can employers and unions cooperate to accommodate individuals with multiple chemical scent sensitivities?\n\nBreak 2:15 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. \nPanel 4 - Fluctuations and Flare-Ups: Practical guidance on accommodating episodic disabilities in the workplaces 2:30 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. ET\nFluctuations and Flare-Ups: Practical guidance on accommodating episodic disabilities in the workplace\n\n\n \nMelissa Egan\nLead Episodic Disabilities\nRealize Canada\n\n\n \nShibil Siddiqi\nEmployer Counsel\nProgressive Barristers \n\n\n \nSheilagh Turkington\nUnion Counsel\nCavalluzzo \n\n\nEmployees experiencing episodic disabilities often experience fluctuations in wellness\, which may lead to a decline in workplace performance and increased absenteeism. In this panel\, experts will explore accommodation procedures for employees with episodic disabilities. Specifically\, panelists will address: \n\nWhat questions are appropriate regarding an employee’s episodic disability? When do requests for medical information amount to discrimination or harassment?\nCan an employer inquire into whether an employee’s atypical workplace behaviours or schedules are related to the employee’s episodic disability?\nIs an employer entitled to request medical information from an employee on an ongoing basis? How can an employer balance its interest in requesting medical information with an employee’s right to privacy?\nWhat steps must unions take to satisfy their duty of fair representation for members with episodic disabilities?\nIn what circumstances have arbitrators or judges found that employers or unions have not met their duty to accommodate?\nWhat are best practices in accommodating an employee who requires modified work?\nWhat steps should an employer take when accommodating and communicating with an employee returning from disability leave?\nWhat proactive policies should employers and unions develop to meet the duty to accommodate?\n\nDay 1 closing remarks 4:30 p.m. – 4:35 p.m. ET \nTuesday\, April 18\, 2023Breakfast and Registration – 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.\nIntroductory remarks by Co-Chairs – 9:00 a.m. – 9:10 a.m. \nPanel 5 - Promoting Workplace Equity: Removing barriers\, promoting inclusion\, and identifying the promise and perils of big data\n9:10 a.m. – 10:25 a.m. ET\nPromoting Workplace Equity: Removing barriers\, promoting inclusion\, and identifying the promise and perils of big data\n\n\n \nPriya Sarin\nEmployer Counsel\nSherrard Kuzz \n\n\n \nAkilah Haneef-Jabari\nAnti-Racism Advisor\nConsultant and Trainer\nJabari Community Services \n\n\n \nBrendan McCutchen\nUnion Counsel\nWright Henry \n\n\nPromoting equity at work requires a commitment from workplace actors to remove barriers to participation and success\, to proactively support inclusion\, and to ensure that measures do not\, in fact\, perpetuate discriminatory practices. In this session\, expert panelists will offer attendees practical guidance on topical issues including the value of anti-racist approaches\, improving equity in recruitment and retention (and the related role of preferential equity programs)\, the practical impacts of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)\, and the promises and perils of disaggregated data and artificial intelligence in advancing workplace equity. \nBreak 10:25 a.m. – 10:40 a.m. ET \nPanel 6 - Is Privacy a Human Right? The evolution of Code-based rights in a technological world 10:40 a.m. - 11:55 a.m. ET\nIs Privacy a Human Right? The evolution of Code-based rights in a technological world\n\n\n \nNisha Dhanoa\nEmployer Counsel\nHunter Liberatore Law \n\n\n \nDanielle Bisnar\nUnion Counsel\nCavalluzzo \n\n\nShould employee privacy be recognized as a human right in response to evolving monitoring technologies? In this panel\, experts will discuss best practices in balancing employee privacy and modern technologies in the workplace. Specifically\, panelists will address: \n\nWhat changes does the federal Digital Charter Implementation Act\, 2022 (Bill C-27) propose regarding workplace electronic monitoring? How do these provisions in the proposed Act differ from the current Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and related provincial legislation?\nWhat consequences do monitoring technologies pose for employees’ privacy and human rights? What specific considerations do these technologies raise for remote workers?\nWhat key issues should employers and unions address in policies or collective agreement provisions governing employee privacy for in-person\, hybrid\, and remote workers?\nWhat suite of off-duty privacy rights and protections does an employee enjoy\, if any? What privacy rights\, if any\, are available to job applicants?\nWhat are best practices in soliciting employee consent to digital surveillance measures?\nWhat are best practices in tracking\, compiling\, and retaining employee information? How about job applicant information?\nHow have arbitral attitudes towards workplace privacy measures evolved in response to monitoring technologies?\n\nLunch 11:55 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. \nPanel 7 - Off the Clock Conduct: Balancing employee beliefs and actions with maintaining a respectful workplace 1:00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m. ET\nOff the Clock Conduct: Balancing employee beliefs and actions with maintaining a respectful workplace\n\n\n \nPatricia D’Heureux\nUnion Counsel\nCavalluzzo \n\n\n \nDr. Faisal Bhabha\nOsgoode Hall Law School\,\nYork University \n\n\n \nCarla Black\nEmployer Counsel\nRae Christen Jeffries \n\n\nEmployees with differing perspectives and beliefs nonetheless need to work collegially in the workplace. In this panel\, experts will examine the responsibilities of an employer and union in ensuring appropriate employee conduct\, both inside and outside the workplace. Topics to be addressed include: \n\nWhat are best practices for employers and unions to balance an employee’s Charter rights and freedom of expression with a workplace that remains free from discrimination and harassment?\nWhat are best practices for employers and unions in preventing workplace bullying and harassment? Should workplace training include off-duty conduct?\nHow can employers and unions best respond to problematic employee behaviour in a virtual working environment?\nCan an employer limit an employee’s political speech at work? What constitutes political speech?\nCan an employee face discipline for verbal statements\, online commentary\, or conduct outside of work hours? Is an employer justified in disciplining an employee whose off-duty conduct reflects that employee’s workplace behaviours?\nDoes an employer\, union\, or employee have a duty to report a controversial online statement by another employee?\nWhat are the duties of a union in representing members facing consequences from expressing unpopular beliefs or opinions in the workplace? Is the union’s duty different if the member is being disciplined for expressions or comments made outside the workplace or online?\nWhat are best practices for unions and employers where an employee or member alleges that workplace management has engaged in inappropriate or controversial comments or behaviours? Is a different duty owed when the conduct occurs outside the workplace or online?\n\nBreak 2:15 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. \nPanel 8 - Seeking the Antidote: Identifying and repairing poisoned workplaces2:30 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. ET\nSeeking the Antidote: Identifying and repairing poisoned workplaces\n\n\n \nElana Fleischmann\nMediator/Workplace Restoration Expert \n\n\n \nOzlem Yucel\nEmployer Counsel\nTurnpenney Milne LLP \n\n\n \nPaul Champ\nUnion Counsel\nChamp Law \n\n\nAs codified in the Ontario Human Rights Code\, employers must ensure that a workplace is free from discrimination and/or harassment. While poisoned workplaces are not directly defined under the Code\, these topics do include poisoned work environments involving personal harassment. In this panel\, experts will examine employer and union responsibilities in identifying and repairing poisoned workplaces. Specifically\, panelists will address: \n\nHow have adjudicators differentiated between personality conflicts and a poisoned workplace? Do an employee’s perceptions factor into this assessment?\nDoes “workplace culture” excuse conduct that would otherwise be considered poisonous? What role\, if any\, does a workplace harassment policy play in making this determination?\nWhat types of behaviour may constitute subtle forms of a poisoned workplace? What signs may indicate that someone is experiencing unreported harassment or bullying?\nWhat actions and restorative approaches should unions and employers take when an employee raises allegations of a poisoned environment? Is the intent to poison relevant when assessing disciplinary actions?\nWhat management styles or behaviours have adjudicators identified as harassment or bullying?\nHow have remote environments changed the prevailing understanding of poisoned workplaces? What strategies can employers and unions implement to respond to problematic behaviour in virtual spaces?\nWhat support can unions provide to members affected by a poisoned workplace?\nWhat steps should employers and unions take to create a safe and respectful workplace?\n\nEnd of day 2 – 3:45 p.m. \nConference CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 10 Continuing Professional Development hours under Section A3 of the Recertification Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 10 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 10 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 10 substantive hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/toronto-human-rights-and-accommodation-conference/
LOCATION:Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel\, 123 Queen Street West\, Toronto\, Ontario\, M5H 3M9 Most popular places at this add\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Human Rights & Accommodation
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/toronto-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20230419T090000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20230419T123500
DTSTAMP:20260414T142607
CREATED:20230405T235210Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230414T214458Z
UID:7739-1681894800-1681907700@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Ontario Micro Conference on Gender Equity (Virtual Event)
DESCRIPTION:Wednesday\, April 19\, 2023Introductory remarks by Co-Chairs – 9:00 a.m. – 9:10 a.m. \nPanel 1 - Paving the Path to Gender Equity: Exploring recent caselaw\, contract clauses\, and legislation 9:10 a.m. – 10:40 a.m. ET\nPaving the Path to Gender Equity: Exploring recent caselaw\, contract clauses\, and legislation\n\n\n \nNicole Biros-Bolton\nAssociate (Human Rights Law)\nRoss & McBride LLP \n\n\n \nAnna Matas\nSenior Lawyer\,\nGillian Hnatiw & Co \n\n\n \nJan Borowy\nPartner\, Cavalluzzo \n\n\nIn this panel\, experts will discuss caselaw addressing workplace harassment\, discrimination\, and pay equity\, examine emerging trends in remedies\, and explore significant legislative updates related to gender equity. Panelists will also canvass emerging contract language promoting workplace equity in the areas of sex\, sexual orientation\, gender identity and expression\, and family status. Final selection of topics takes place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most important developments. The speakers and materials for this session will address the following questions\, among others: \n\nHow have adjudicators acknowledged sex- and gender-based barriers in recruitment\, retention\, and advancement? What aspects of hiring and promotion processes have weighed in favour of\, or against\, a finding of discrimination? What principles can be drawn from recent cases in which adjudicators found\, or declined to find\, that employer policies or actions had a discriminatory impact on employees because of pregnancy or family status?\nWhat trends in discipline and remedies are discernible in recent caselaw addressing workplace sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination? What aggravating and mitigating factors have impacted adjudicators’ decisions?\nHow have courts and adjudicators applied the Ontario Pay Equity Act in recent cases? What principles can be drawn from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Participating Nursing Homes regarding the proxy method and the Divisional Court’s decision in Ontario Nurses’ Association v. 10 Community Care Access Centres holding that employers are not statutorily required to bargain pay equity?\nWhere the Ontario Pay Equity Act does not directly apply\, what factors have influenced a determination of whether gender-based pay discrimination has occurred? For example: What factors were determinative in the Court of Appeal decision in Ontario (Health) v. Association of Ontario Midwives that upheld a finding of gender discrimination and a retroactive wage increase for Ontario midwives? On what basis did the court find in Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association v. His Majesty that Bill 124 did not violate Charter equality rights?\nHas progress on closing the gender pay gap been made in Ontario? in Canada? Are recent cross-country legislative reforms — such as the introduction of the federal Pay Equity Act\, the introduction of pay equity legislation in Newfoundland\, and consultations regarding pay transparency measures in British Columbia — indicative of a growing commitment to pay equity?\nWhat key legislative reforms have been introduced that are intended to further gender equity at work? For example: What are the implications of Canada’s recent ratification of the international Violence and Harassment Convention\, 2019 (C190)? Is legislation such as the newly introduced U.S. Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act and Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act necessary in Canada? What amendments to the federal Employment Equity Act relating to gender and sexual orientation are being considered in the course of the legislation’s ongoing review?\nHow can employers and unions modify contract language to promote workplace equity in the areas of sex\, sexual orientation\, gender identity and expression\, and family status? For example: What changes should be made to leave\, benefits\, training\, recruitment\, retention\, and advancement provisions?\nDoes the recent certification of class action proceedings related to workplace sexual harassment and discrimination signal an increasing potential for success in pursuing these claims on a systemic scale?\n\nBreak 10:40 a.m. – 10:55 a.m. ET \nKeynote Speaker 10:55 a.m. - 11:40 a.m. ET\nLessons from the past for the post #MeToo Workplace\n\n\n \nPeggy Nash\nSenior Advisor and Chair of the Advisory Committee of the Centre for Labour Management Relations at the Ted Rogers School of Management at TMU \n\n\nIn a post #MeToo and post “because it’s 2015” environment\, we assume that workplaces are gender equal and respectful. Yet all too often we hear about continuing challenges with gender biases and outright harassment in the workplace. Ongoing problems in the RCMP capture headlines\, but they are far from alone as institutions struggling to make progress. Women continue to drop out of jobs\, giving up because they just don’t believe that they are valued or that they want to continue to push back against the barriers they face. While we have made significant progress\, many organizations still struggle to find solutions. However\, there are some lessons to be learned from workplaces that have been grappling with these issues for decades.Break 11:40 a.m. – 11:55 a.m. \nPanel 2 - One Size Does Not Fit All: Fashioning non-discriminatory dress code policies 11:55 a.m. - 12:45 p.m. ET\nOne Size Does Not Fit All: Fashioning non-discriminatory dress code policies\n\n\n \nDavid Jewitt\nArbitrator and Mediator \n\n\n \nNiiti Simmonds\nPartnerCavalluzzo \n\n\n \nMegan Mah\nPartnerWeirfoulds LLP \n\n\nEmployers are entitled to establish workplace dress codes in accordance with the operational needs of the organization. In doing so\, however\, employers must ensure that dress code policies comply with the Ontario Human Rights Code. In this panel\, experts will examine the development of dress code policies in light of employees’ personal preferences and religious obligations\, discussing the following: \n\nWhat are best practices for employers when developing workplace dress code policies? What are best practices for employers and unions when addressing an employee’s non-compliance with dress code policies?\nWhat recent human rights complaints have resulted from workplace dress code policies?\nWhen developing dress code policies\, what lessons can Canadian employers learn from employers in other jurisdictions?\nWhat are best practices in crafting dress code policies that use gender-inclusive language? How have organizations incorporated gender-neutral and inclusive dress code policies into their workplaces?\nWhat guidance has the Ontario Human Rights Commission issued for employers in industries which tend to have gender-specific or “sexualized” dress code policies?\nWhen\, if ever\, can an employer ask an employee to remove religious attire to comply with a workplace health and safety policy? What are other aspects of dress code policies that may intersect with health and safety concerns?\nTo what extent can an employer dictate the grooming habits of its employees? In what circumstances\, if any\, can an employer restrict the use of make-up or jewelry\, or the visibility of tattoos and body modifications\, in the workplace?\nWhat should employers consider when mandating dress code policies for remote workers?\n\nEnd of Micro-Conference – 12:45 p.m. \nMicro-Conference CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours under Section A3 of the Recertification Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 3.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 3.5 substantive hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/ontario-micro-conference-on-gender-equity/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/Gender-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR