BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Lancaster House - ECPv6.15.4//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
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/Halifax
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0300
TZNAME:ADT
DTSTART:20240310T060000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0300
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:AST
DTSTART:20241103T050000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240418
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240420
DTSTAMP:20260418T040803
CREATED:20231109T142359Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240723T174556Z
UID:11264-1713398400-1713571199@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Toronto Human Rights and Accommodation Conference: Current practices\, emerging trends
DESCRIPTION:Toronto Human Rights and Accommodation ConferenceConference Co-Chairs\n\n \nSarah Atkinson\nLabour Arbitrator and Mediator \n\n\n \nBonny Mak\nEmployer Counsel\nFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP \n\n\n \nKristen Allen\nUnion Counsel\nUrsel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP \n\n\nInterested to attend\, but need a little more time to confirm?\n RSVP today for best pricing and supportConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nRaj Dhir\nExecutive Director\nIndigenous Justice Policy (Indigenous Justice Division)\nMinistry of the\nAttorney General \n\n\n \nShana French\nEmployer Counsel\nSherrard Kuzz LLP \n\n\n \nJenny Neiman\nSenior Manager\, Human Rights Office\nCity of Toronto \n\n\n \nGregory Ko\nUnion Counsel\nKastner Ko LLP \n\n\n \nSeema Lamba\nHuman Rights\nPrograms Officer\nPublic Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) \n\n\nThursday\, April 18\, 2024Registration and Breakfast: 8:00 am – 9:00 am ET \nOpening Remarks: 9:00 am – 9:05 am ET \nPanel 1 - Human Rights Highlights: The latest caselaw and legislative developments - 9:05 am – 10:35 am ET\n\n\n \nMeg Atkinson\nUnion Counsel\nKastner Ko LLP \n\n\n \nKim Bernhardt\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\n \nMatthew Horner\nLegal Counsel\nOntario Human Rights Commission \n\n\n \nNeena Gupta\nEmployer Counsel\nGowling WLG \n\n\n \nWade Poziomka\nUnion Counsel\nRoss & McBride LLP \n\n\n \nHossein Moghtaderi\nEmployer Counsel\nFilion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP \n\n\nIn this session\, panelists will examine recent noteworthy cases and legislative developments. Speakers will discuss the latest cases addressing: medical information disputes\, caste-based discrimination\, workplaces poisoned by harassment and discrimination\, biometric monitoring\, citizenship-based discrimination\, and Anti-SLAPP cases (motions to dismiss defamation lawsuits that are designed to suppress free speech. \nThis panel will also address Ontario and federal legislative initiatives\, including: \n\nOntario’s Working for Workers Four Act\, 2024 (Bill 149);\nFederal legislation targeting forced labour and child labour (Bill S-211);\nProposed prohibition of strike replacement workers (Bill C-58); and\nAmendments to federal Employment Equity Act (Bill C-64) expanding reporting requirements.\nProposed changes to the Employment Standards Act\,\n\nBreak: 10:35 am – 10:50 am ET \nPanel 2 - Investigating Investigations: Examining current practices and recent caselaw - 10:50 am – 12:05 pm ET\n\n\n \nSharon Naipaul\nMediator/Investigator\nStrategic Workplace Equity and Conflict Resolution Solutions \n\n\n \nOzlem Yucel\nEmployer Counsel\nTurnpenney Milne LLP \n\n\n \nAndrea Wobick\nUnion Counsel\nUrsel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists will examine recent caselaw addressing workplace investigations and will explore key principles and best practices in conducting fair\, adequate\, and effective investigations into human rights-related allegations. \nThe panel will address questions including: \n\nWhat lessons can be learned from recent cases as to what constitutes a fair and adequate investigation process? What procedural flaws have been found to render an investigation unfair or inadequate?\nIs a formal investigation always required when an employee raises human rights-related concerns? When might other options\, such as alternative dispute resolution\, be permissible or preferable?\nWhen is retaining a third-party investigator necessary? What other alternatives are possible?\nCan the grounds for an investigation be expanded after the investigation has already commenced – for example\, if an investigation reveals issues of systemic discrimination?\nWhat are best practices for countering unconscious and implicit bias and otherwise ensuring stereotypes and discrimination do not impact the investigatory process?\nHow much latitude do employers have to order investigations into off-duty conduct? May workplace investigators ask to examine employees’ personal devices\, such as laptops or cellphones\, which employees use exclusively or primarily for personal purposes?\nWhat legal avenues are available to employees who wish to challenge what they believe to be an unfair or improper investigation into their human rights allegations? Can an investigator be held personally liable for conducting an inadequate investigation?\nHow should employers and unions respond when an investigation reveals bad faith allegations by an employee? What role does the union have in restoring a safe and healthy workplace for all parties following an investigation?\n\nNetworking Lunch: 12:05 pm – 1:05 pm ET \nPanel 3 - Beliefs and Boundaries: Reconciling employee free speech and employer concerns - 1:05 pm – 2:20 pm ET\n\n\n \nAngela Bradley\nLawyer\, Mediator\, Workplace Investigator \n\n\n \nLorenzo Lisi\nEmployer Counsel\nAird & Berlis LLP \n\n\n \nPatricia D’Heureux\nUnion Counsel\nCavalluzzo LLP \n\n\nTensions may arise between employee free speech and an employer’s duty to ensure a safe and respectful workplace. How can these arguably competing rights and obligations be balanced? \nIn this session\, a panel of experts will address: \n\nWhat is the line between safeguarding employee free speech and ensuring a respectful and safe work environment? Do employees have the right to express their views on potentially controversial and/or political matters at work?\nCan employers discipline employees for private statements and/or expressions made outside the workplace?\nTo what extent will arbitrators consider Charter rights and values such as freedom of expression in the context of off-duty conduct?\nWhat is the extent of a union’s duty to represent members who face work-related consequences for their potentially polarizing beliefs? When will a union’s decision not to represent a member constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation?\n\nBreak: 2:20 pm – 2:35 pm ET \nPanel 4 - Is it Harassment or Not? An interactive panel with case studies and scenarios - 2:35 pm – 3:50 pm ET\n\n\n \nBay Ryley\nPresident\nRyley Learning \nLawyer\nEmployment & Human Rights\nRyley Law \n\n\n \nMelissa Roth\nEmployer Counsel\nGowling WLG \n\n\n \nAleisha Stevens\nUnion Counsel\nCaleyWray \n\n\nIn Ontario\, workplace harassment is defined as “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” In many instances impugned conduct or comments will clearly meet this definition\, but in other cases debate may arise as to whether the alleged harasser ought reasonably to have known that certain comments or conduct would be unwelcome. \nThis session will highlight the degree to which reasonable minds may disagree about whether certain comments or conduct constitute harassment\, probe the reasons behind such disagreement\, and address questions such as: \n\nShould a complainant’s subjective feelings of humiliation or offence be determinative of whether certain conduct constitutes harassment? If not\, why not?\nWhat role do a complainant’s personal characteristics – gender and race\, for example – play in determining whether certain conduct should be reasonably seen to be offensive? How might a decision-maker’s unconscious bias interfere in the analysis of whether conduct could reasonably be seen to be insulting or humiliating?\nDoes workplace culture play any role in determining whether conduct ought reasonably to have been known to be offensive?\nIs the analysis of whether conduct constitutes harassment affected by a friendship or previous romantic relationships between complainant and respondent? What about power imbalances or lack thereof?\nHow is the reasonableness of management action assessed to determine whether or not it constitutes harassment?\n\nClosing Remarks: 3:50 pm – 4:00 pm ET \nFriday\, April 19\, 2024Registration and Breakfast: 8:00 am – 9:00 am ET \nOpening Remarks: 9:00 am – 9:05 am ET \nPanel 5 - Putting Neurodiversity to Work: Effective strategies for recruitment\, accommodation\, and retention - 9:05 am – 10:20 am ET\n\n\n \nSandy Donaldson\nLabour Relations Officer\nOntario Nurses’ Association (ONA) \n\n\n \nSimon Margolis\nKnowledge Management Lawyer\nBorden Ladner Gervais LLP \n\n\n \nSara Parchello\nEmployer Counsel\nBennett Jones LLP \n\n\nThere is increasing recognition that neurodivergence is a strength\, not a deficit\, and building inclusive\, neurodivergent workplaces makes a positive impact. In this panel\, experts will examine how employers can effectively recruit\, retain\, and accommodate neurodivergent employees\, and how unions can support their neurodivergent membership. \nSpecifically\, the panel will address: \n\nHow can businesses benefit from hiring neurodivergent employees?\nWhat measures can employers put in place to effectively recruit neurodivergent employees? How can employers support/accommodate neurodivergent applicants throughout the recruitment process?\nConsidering the emphasis on self-identification in the neurodiverse community\, must employees who identify as neurodivergent provide evidence of a medical diagnosis to access initiatives designed to recruit diverse employees? How should employers respond to these disclosures when they occur?\nHow do common stereotypes hinder the inclusion and accommodation of neurodivergent employees in the workplace? What can be done to guard against these stereotypes?\nWhat should workplace parties know about specific conditions such as Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)\, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD)\, and learning disabilities falling under the umbrella of neurodivergence? Do these conditions share any similarities? How might they affect an employee’s work performance?\nWhat are the signs an employee may be struggling with work performance or workplace relationships because of a neurological difference such as ASD or ADHD? When does the employer have a duty to inquire as to whether the employee in question requires accommodation?\nWhat are some examples of appropriate and effective accommodations for neurodivergent employees?\nWhat kind of medical information can employers request from employees seeking accommodation on the basis of neurodivergence? Can a detailed neuropsychological evaluation report be required? How often\, if ever\, can updated medical information be requested from a neurodivergent employee\, who\, by definition\, has a lifelong condition?\nWhat accommodations should unions provide to neurodivergent members accessing union services and using union processes?\n\nBreak: 10:20 am – 10:35 am ET \nPanel 6 - Truly Transformative? Recent federal and Ontario initiatives in employment equity - 10:35 am – 11:50 am ET\n\n\n \nPatricia DeGuire\nChief Commissioner\nOntario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) \n\n\n \nPriya Sarin\nEmployer Counsel\nSherrard Kuzz LLP \n\n\n \nAditya Rao\nSenior Officer\, Human Rights\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\nIn this session\, panelists will address the recent report of the federal Employment Equity Act Review Task Force and related change to the Act\, exploring broader lessons learned for workplace parties in all sectors and drawing connections to recent provincial initiatives aimed at promoting workplace equity. \nQuestions to be addressed include: \n\nWhat changes did the Task Force recommend with respect to how employment equity groups are defined and described under the Employment Equity Act?\nWhat is “intersectionality” and why is it important to adopt an intersectional approach to workplace policies? What recommendations did the Task Force make in this regard?\nHow can employers shift from a “top-down” approach to employment equity to a consultative process which involves unions and employees? What lessons can be learned from the Task Force’s recommendations regarding workplace employment equity committees?\nWhat problems did the Task Force identify with the concepts of “merit” or “fit” in recruiting and promoting employees?\nHow can workplace parties ensure that the collection of employee data for equity-related initiatives is meaningful and appropriate? What common pitfalls have led to what the Task Force deems “superficial data collection”? How can employers and unions measure and evaluate progress toward workplace equity?\nWhat recommendations did the Task Force make with respect to the use of non-disclosure agreements? Are there currently any restrictions regarding the use of these agreements in Ontario?\nHow is the Ontario Working for Workers Four Act\, 2023\, if passed\, expected to address issues of discrimination in recruitment and promotion as identified by the Task Force? How does the legislation compare to\, for example\, B.C.’s recently-passed Pay Transparency Act?\nWhat key updates should employers make to workplace harassment and discrimination policies taking into account the recommendations of the Task Force? Should employers updating their policies make any changes in light of the recent Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy position on caste-based discrimination?\n\nNetworking Lunch: 11:50 am – 12:50 pm ET \nKeynote - Building inclusive workplaces: Promising practices and future possibilities - 12:50 pm – 1:20 pm ET\n\n\n \nDr. Rebecca Gewurtz\nAssociate Professor\nSchool of Rehabilitation Science\nMcMaster University \nAdjunct Scientist\nInstitute for Work and Health (IWH) \nDirector\nInclusive Design for Employment Access (IDEA) Social Innovation Laboratory \n\n\nThe Inclusive Design for Employment Access (IDEA) is a social innovation laboratory that is focused on strengthening the capacity of Canadian employers to fully include persons with disabilities within Canadian workplaces. In this talk\, I will outline some of the promising practices that are emerging from our work with employers and other stakeholders to improve organizational capacity to hire\, support\, and promote persons with disabilities in diverse roles across different sectors. I will share what we currently know\, what we are working on\, and ways that different stakeholders\, including service providers\, government decision-makers\, labour representatives\, disability organizations\, and employers can work on together to build more inclusive Canadian workplaces. I will share what we mean by inclusive hiring\, onboarding\, mentorship and advancement practices\, and where employers often run into challenges despite good intentions. I will conclude by sharing some emerging developments to watch for as we continue our partner-based work within IDEA. \nPanel 7 - AI and Human Rights: Exploring the promise and peril of artificial intelligence in the workplace - 1:20 pm – 2:30 pm ET\n\n\n \nJames Craig\nUnion Counsel\nMorrison Watts Hurtado & Buchner \n\n\n \nRyan Fritsch\nCounsel\nLaw Commission of Ontario \n\n\n \nAmanda Hunter\nEmployer Counsel\nHunter Liberatore Law LLP \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists will provide guidance on the continuing evolution of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and the legal landscape surrounding it\, the use of AI by employers\, and the workplace human rights implications paired with it. Panelists will address questions including: \n\nWhat laws regulate AI in Canada? What rules are in place to protect individuals from discriminatory effects resulting from the use of AI?\nWhat are employers most commonly using AI for? How can the use of AI negatively or positively impact workplace human rights?\nAre there legal limits on an employer’s ability to use AI in the workplace? Can an employer’s right to use AI be limited through collective agreement language?\nWill human resources be taken over by “algorithmic management\,” defined as delegating to algorithms certain managerial tasks such as filtering through applications for employment\, assessing employee performance\, or even making decisions regarding termination of employment?\nHow have arbitrators and adjudicators treated the use of AI in the workplace in light of anti-discrimination and duty to accommodate laws\, such as an employer’s use of biometric scanning or AI driven recruitment processes?\nAre employees entitled to information about how their employer is using AI and monitoring and surveillance technologies? How can collective bargaining provisions address these issues?\nWhat can employers do to mitigate risks of bias\, discrimination or otherwise preventing potential breaches of human rights laws when using AI?\n\nBreak: 2:30 pm – 2:45 pm ET \nPanel 8 - Ties That Bind: Accommodating family status and caregiving obligations - 2:45 pm – 3:55 pm ET\n\n\n \nShane Todd\nEmployer Counsel\nFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP \n\n\n \nReema Khawja\nSenior Counsel\nOntario Human Rights Commission \n\n\n \nDoug Wray\nUnion Counsel\nCaleyWray \n\n\nIn this interactive session\, expert panelists will address the test for family status in Ontario and engage audience members in exercises illustrating practical applications of the test\, better equipping employers and unions to navigate accommodation requests. Speakers will address issues including: \n\nWhat forms of caregiving fall under the protective umbrella of family status accommodation?\nWhat constitutes a sufficiently serious interference with a family obligation such that it will amount to family status discrimination?\nHow can employers and unions distinguish preferences from obligations? For example\, when will a request to work from home to provide caregiving to elderly parents or young children amount to an obligation rather than a preference? What about requests such as leaving work early to enable an employee to pick up a child from school rather than have that child take the bus?\nAre employees required to demonstrate that they have made some effort to “self-accommodate” (e.g. explore a variety of childcare options) before an employer’s duty to accommodate is triggered?\nWhat qualifies as “undue hardship” for an employer when it comes to family status accommodation?\nWhat policies should employers and unions consider to meet family status accommodation requirements and reduce workplace barriers for employees with family obligations?\n\nClosing Remarks: 3:55 pm – 4:00 pm ET \nCPDConference CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 11 Continuing Professional Development hours under Section A3 of the Recertification Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association.\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 11 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n \nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 11 substantive hours; 0 professionalism hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/toronto-human-rights-and-accommodation-conference-2024/
LOCATION:Vantage Venues\, 150 King Street West\, Toronto\, Ontario\, M5H 1J9\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Human Rights & Accommodation
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/toronto-HRA-2024-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR