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/Denver
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:MDT
DTSTART:20260308T090000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:MST
DTSTART:20261101T080000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
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
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0300
TZNAME:ADT
DTSTART:20250309T060000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0300
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:AST
DTSTART:20251102T050000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
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
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20240310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20241103T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260415
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260417
DTSTAMP:20260420T160005
CREATED:20251001T183305Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260410T181644Z
UID:17907-1776211200-1776383999@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:B.C. Human Rights and Accommodation Conference
DESCRIPTION:What to Expect \nIn this conference\, leading labour relations\, lawyers\, and human rights professionals will explore recent legal developments and emerging workplace human rights challenges in B.C. and federally. \nThroughout the event\, panelists from union-side\, employer-side\, and neutral perspectives will share their insights through moderated discussions. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions verbally or electronically at the end of each panel. \nParticipants will also be provided with a comprehensive set of digital materials including textbook chapters\, case summaries\, and other online resources relevant to panel discussions These resources\, developed through hours of research by Lancaster House program lawyers\, will prove invaluable for future reference. \nAttendees also have the option to attend our featured expert-led workshop offered by our Centre for Labour Relations Training & Development\, taking place the day after the conference\, where attendees will engage in panel hands-on scenarios tailored to address real workplace human rights challenges. \n\nWho Should Attend? \nThis conference will provide invaluable learning and networking opportunities for: \nThis event is designed for professionals across multiple industries\, including: \n\nHuman Resources Leaders – HR managers\, directors\, and disability management specialists navigating accommodations and compliance.\nEmployment & Labour Lawyers – Legal professionals seeking updates on human rights and workplace accommodation case law.\nUnion Representatives & Labour Relations Experts – Advocates ensuring fair treatment of employees in collective bargaining.\nCorporate Executives & Compliance Officers – Business leaders responsible for implementing workplace policies aligned with human rights law.\nGovernment & Public Sector Professionals – HR and legal representatives working in municipal\, provincial\, and federal agencies.\n\n\nLearning Outcomes \nBy attending this conference\, you will: \n✔ Understand the latest human rights law updates and their impact on workplace policies. \n✔ Gain best practices for accommodation requests related to disability\, religion\, and family status. \n✔ Develop strategies for fostering an inclusive workplace and preventing discrimination. \n✔ Learn from top legal and HR experts through engaging panel discussions and real-world case studies. \n✔ Network with industry peers and build valuable professional connections. \n\nWednesday\, April 15\, 2026 \nBreakfast: 8:00 – 9:00 am \n\nIntroductory Remarks: 9:00 – 9:05 am \nKeynote - Indigenizing/Decolonizing the Workplace - 9:05 – 9:35 am\n\n  \n\n \nPatricia Barkaskas\nAssociate Professor\nAllard School of Law\nThe University of British Columbia \n\n\nWhether Gramsci did actually utter the exact words of the currently oft-quoted phrase\, “The old world is dying\, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters”\, or not\, this statement is clearly a portent of our present moment. The persistent attack in this time on the values of equity\, diversity\, and inclusion is evident and pervasive. These values\, central to Canadian human rights law and those whose work involves protecting human rights\, are important and yet\, they fail to include decolonization or meaningfully consider Indigenous human rights – this is particularly true in the context of human rights in workplaces. However\, given the upheaval of the old\, perhaps this moment provides an opportunity to imagine a new world that does not simply re-entrench previous systems that support equity\, diversity\, and inclusion\, although these remain significant\, but dares to instead reimagine a transformative approach to human rights that leads from a place of decolonization and Indigenous human rights.Panel 1 - New and Noteworthy: Major recent caselaw\, legislation\, and policy developments - 9:35 – 10:50 am\n\n\n \nJodie Gauthier\nUnion Counsel\nBlack Burke Mayor \n\n\n \nAmanda Rogers\nArbitrator/Mediator/Lawyer \n\n\n \nLauren Soubolsky\nEmployer Counsel\nMcCarthy Tetrault \n\n\nThis session provides a focused review of significant developments in British Columbia labour\, employment\, and human rights law. Specifically\, panelists will address: \nCaselaw: \n\nIn what circumstances will ‘unconscious bias’ amount to discrimination in hiring or recruitment?\nHow do recent decisions affect employers’ obligations to investigate allegations of discrimination and harassment?\nWhen will an employee’s controversial views\, whether expressed online or in the workplace\, justify discipline\, discharge\, or damages?\nWhat forms of disability accommodation do courts and tribunals expect employers to implement? When do accommodations cross the line from what is reasonable to undue hardship?\nWhen does interference with a family obligation constitute discrimination? How does one distinguish between family responsibilities deserving of protection and personal preferences?\nWhat limits are courts and arbitrators placing on employer surveillance and monitoring of employees?\nWhen does the Charter apply to decisions by employers or quasi-governmental bodies\, particularly those involving vaccination policies\, political expression\, or collective bargaining?\nWhat trends are emerging in damage awards for discrimination\, failure to accommodate\, and reprisal?\n\nLegislation: \nThis session will also cover recent and upcoming changes to BC and federal legislation\, including: \n\nC. Employment Standards Amendment Act\, Bill 11 – 2025: new rules governing sick notes;\nC. Pay Transparency Act: new pay reporting requirements; and\nC. Employment Standards Act: new leaves for serious personal illness or injury.\nCanada Labour Code amendments:\n\nleaves for pregnancy and bereavement;\nreplacement workers during strikes and lockouts; and\nand non-compete agreements.\n\n\n\nFinal selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most newsworthy developments. \nBreak: 10:50 – 11:05 am \nPanel 2 - Human Rights in the Hybrid Workplace: Giving effect to employee accommodations in the context of a return-to-office mandate - 11:05 – 12:15 pm\n\n\n \nKai Ying Chieh\nEmployer Counsel\nOverholt Law LLP \n\n\n \nPeter Eastwood\nUnion Counsel\nHamilton Howell Bain & Gould \n\n\n \nDr. Hajera Rostam\nRegistered Psychologist \nPrivate Practice \n\n\nIn this session\, panelists will examine return-to-office mandates through a human rights lens. The panel will address questions such as: \n\nWhat features of a general return-to-office mandate will violate human rights? How will collective agreement language affect the matter?\nHow do such requirements impact mental health? Does remote or hybrid work mitigate or exacerbate mental health? Inequity?\nIn what circumstances have arbitrators or adjudicators found that employees must be accommodated through work-from-home arrangements for health-related reasons or to accommodate child- or elder-care responsibilities? What information can employers require to support such a request?\nWhen will an order that an employee return to in-person work amount to a bona fide occupational requirement? When will an employer be able to establish that it would amount to undue hardship to allow an employee to work on a remote\, hybrid\, or flexible basis?\nHow can one distinguish personal preferences from legitimate accommodation needs? How can parties work effectively with medical and mental health professionals to identify and support accommodation needs?\nWhat practical considerations should be taken into account when assessing whether employees should be permitted to work from home? What flexible working options are available other than remote or hybrid work?\nWhat practices help reduce conflict\, resentment\, or disengagement when accommodations are being considered\, implemented\, or denied?\n\n\nNetworking lunch: 12:15 – 1:00 pm \nFireside Chat - Navigating resistance to EDI initiatives - 1:00 – 1:45 pm\n\n\n \nHasan Alam\nStaff Lawyer\nB.C. General Employees’ Union (BCGEU) \n\n\n \nKasari Govender\nCommissioner\nBC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner \n\n\nJoin the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner and experienced labour relations practitioners in a candid conversation about the shifting landscape of EDI initiatives in Canada as they examine evolving pushback to this work\, the implications for equity-deserving individuals\, and what is and is not working in current approaches. Participants will leave better equipped to navigate EDI fatigue and opposition while upholding human rights and furthering the collective pursuit of safe\, equitable workplaces for all.Break: 1:45 – 2:05 pm \n\nPanel 3 - Repairing Harm: Exploring restorative solutions following human rights transgressions - 2:05 – 3:35 pm\n\n\n \nStarleigh Grass\nAssistant Director\nField Services Division\nBritish Columbia Teachers Federation (BCTF) \n\n\n \nChristianne Paras\nExecutive Director of Restorative Justice Association of BC \n\n\nWhen human rights violations occur in the workplace\, traditional labour relations tools alone – such as discipline – may fall short in addressing the needs of the complainant\, repairing relationships\, and preventing future harm. In this session\, panelists will explore the use of restorative approaches\, addressing questions such as: \n\nWhat does it mean to adopt a “restorative approach” to conflict and human rights violations? What unique benefits can such approaches provide?\nWhen can or should alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) be used to address human rights transgressions at work? What ADR options exist\, and what are the relevant advantages and disadvantages of each?\nWhat steps can parties take to address barriers to equity when implementing restorative approaches?\nWhat factors have arbitrators considered in recent cases in determining whether an employment relationship is salvageable following an employee’s human rights breaches? What room exists for education and reintegration rather than discipline?\nWhat “early warning signs” indicate that a workplace is in need of restoration? How can restorative approaches\, implemented early\, assist in preventing future harm?\nWhat steps can employers and unions take to ensure that a healthy and safe work environment is restored following a human rights violation? How can restorative approaches address systemic or collective harm?\nWhat changes can be made to workplace policies or collective agreements to incorporate restorative approaches? What are the respective roles of employers\, unions\, and employees in implementing these approaches?\n\nClosing remarks: 3:35 – 3:45 pm \n\nThursday\, April 16\, 2026 \nBreakfast and registration: 8:00 – 9:00 am \n\nOpening remarks: 9:00 – 9:05 am \n\nPanel 4 - Respecting Rights\, Achieving Closure: Strategies for successful mediation of human rights disputes - 9:05 – 10:20 am\n\n\n \nMenachem Freedman\nUnion Counsel\nHamilton Howell Bain & Gould \n\n\n \nEric Ito\nEmployer Counsel\nCooperwilliams Truman & Ito LLP \n\n\n \nKoml Kandola\nArbitrator and Mediator\nKandola Arbitration Services Ltd. \n\n\nMediation is a vital tool used to successfully resolve human rights disputes in the workplace. This panel will address common challenges surrounding the mediation process and provide attendees with practical takeaways. Specifically\, the panel will answer the following questions: \n\nWhat are the advantages and disadvantages of mediation in human rights disputes? When will it be beneficial to participate in mediation-adjudication or mediation-arbitration?\nHow should the parties assess the merits of a case and determine if a settlement is feasible? What types of files are not appropriate for mediation?\nHow can the parties efficiently prepare for mediation? What information must be gathered?\nHow can the parties determine if power imbalances\, accessibility barriers\, or other barriers to equity will affect the mediation process? What measures can the parties implement to address these barriers?\nIs a “win-win” outcome possible in human rights disputes? What are examples of negotiation strategies and communication techniques that can lead to better outcomes during mediation?\nWhat information should be included in a settlement agreement?\nWhat factors should parties consider before suggesting or entering into a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) as part of a settlement? Are NDAs appropriate for human rights disputes?\n\nBreak: 10:20 – 10:40 am \n\nPanel 5 - Complex Accommodations: Neurodiversity\, substance use\, chronic absenteeism\, and more - 10:40 – 11:40 am\n\n\n \nJessica Fairbairn\nEmployer Counsel\nHarris & Co. \n\n\n \nRyan Goldvine\nArbitrator and Mediator\nGoldvine Dispute Resolution Services\nMember\nBC Human Rights Tribunal \n\n\n \nCaitlin Meggs\nUnion Counsel\nVictory Square Law Office LLP \n\n\nThis panel will explore how employers can identify and respond to accommodation needs in complex situations\, manage attendance and performance concerns fairly and consistently\, and determine the scope and limits of accommodation over time. Panelists will address key questions\, including: \nNeurodivergence: \n\nWhat does the term “neurodivergent” include? What are similarities and differences between learning disabilities\, ADHD\, and Autistic Spectrum Disorders (“ASD”)? What can be done to combat stereotypes affecting the inclusion and accommodation of neurodivergent employees and those with mental health issues in the workplace?\nWhat type of medical information can employers request from neurodivergent employees seeking accommodation\, g. a neuropsychological or psychoeducational evaluation?\n\nMental Health: \n\nWhat accommodations would be most helpful for employees with the following:\n\nLearning disabilities\nASD\nMental health disorders and conditions (i.e. bipolar disorder\, depression\, anxiety)\n\n\nWhat signs may indicate that an employee has a mental health condition or other condition that requires accommodation or support? What are more acute signs of immediate distress versus more subtle signs that an employee may be struggling?\nWhen does the employer have a ‘duty to inquire’ whether an employee is affected by a mental health condition or disability that is causing misconduct in the workplace?\n\nSubstance Use: \n\nWhat guidance does recent case law provide on accommodating substance use disorders in the workplace?\n\nAbsenteeism: \n\nWhat are the components of an Attendance Management Program that addresses the accommodation of an employee’s disability-related absenteeism?\nCan an employee insist on remote work as a form of health-related accommodation? Does an employee’s susceptibility to contracting an illness at the workplace warrant accommodation? What is the type and scope of medical information that is required to support these requests?\nHow should employers and unions address increased absenteeism due to RTO? Are there working options that help improve attendance?\nWhat guidance does recent case law offer on when absenteeism moves beyond reasonable accommodation and into undue hardship?\nHow does the test for ‘undue hardship’ vary in different safety sensitive industries with respect to substance addiction issues or other issues that may pose safety risks in the workplace?\n\nNetworking lunch: 11:40 – 12:40 pm \n\nPanel 6 - Shining a Light on Investigations: Expert guidance\, best practices\, recent caselaw - 12:40 – 1:55 pm\n\n\n \nShelley Ball\nLawyer and InvestigatorShelsu Pacific Law \n\n\n \nSandra Guarascio\nEmployer CounselRoper Greyell LLP \n\n\n \nDr. Nicole Legg\nLicensed PsychologistCo-Founder of WellIntel Inc. \n\n\n \nDavid Tarasoff\nUnion CounselHospital Employees Union \n\n\nInvestigating allegations of human rights violations in the workplace requires a commitment to understanding best practices\, including adopting a trauma-informed approach. Drawing on recent caselaw and best practices\, experts will offer insights into conducting or overseeing workplace investigations in the human rights context. Panelists will address the following questions: \n\nWhat is a trauma-informed approach? What steps can investigators take to ensure workplace human rights investigations are trauma informed?\nWhat measures should employers and investigators implement to support the mental well-being of participants during a workplace investigation and protect them from reprisal? Does the union play a role in supporting mental well-being?\nHow should employers\, unions\, and investigators proactively identify and remove accessibility barriers\, as well as provide accommodations\, during workplace investigations?\nIn what circumstances is hiring an external investigator preferred over an internal investigation? How can the parties strike a balance between thoroughness and urgency during investigations?\nWhat information can be shared with a complainant or respondent once an investigation is complete? How can employers communicate investigation results to complainants in a way that does not harm their mental health?\nMust an employer investigate a human rights allegation even in the absence of a formal complaint? How should anonymous complaints be investigated?\nWhat risks arise from failing to investigate an allegation? In what situations have damages been awarded for an employer’s failure to investigate a human rights allegation?\nWhat obligations do investigators have to disclose their report to the parties? What entitlement do the parties have to disclosure?\nWhat comes next after a workplace investigation? What does an effective workplace restoration process entail?\n\n  \nBreak: 1:55 – 2:15 pm \n\nPanel 7 - Uses and Abuses of Modern Technology: A scenario-based session on social media\, employee monitoring\, and AI - 2:15 – 3:45 pm\n\n\n \nJessica Gregory\nArbitrator\, Mediator and Investigator \n\n\n \nPreston Parsons\nEmployer Counsel\nOverholt LLP \n\n\n \nKaren Segal\nAllevato Quail & Associates \n\n\nThis session will provide employers and unions with the best available insight into AI-driven management decisions\, employee surveillance\, and social media. Experienced management and union counsel will join an arbitrator to discuss three hypothetical scenerios relating to AI management\, social media use\, and surveillance. \nSpecific issues to be addressed include: \n\nWhat is the current role of AI-driven tools in management decision-making\, and how is that role expected to evolve in the future?\nIn what circumstances can an employer dismiss an employee for inappropriate social media posts? Where is the line between free speech and offensive speech?\nHow are employers and unions addressing the use of algorithmic management in collective agreements?\nDo employees have to disclose usage of AI?\nWhat arguments for and against the use of algorithmic management will arbitrators find most compelling?\nWhat arguments for and against the use of employee surveillance have arbitrators accepted or rejected?\nWhat legal concerns arise when an employer uses AI to assess candidates’ suitability for positions?\n\nClosing remarks: 3:45 – 3:55 pm \n\nFood and Beverages \nBreakfast and lunch to be provided\, with a variety of snacks and refreshments available during breaks. Breakfast is provided prior to the workshop and will be available starting at 8:00 am. Please share any dietary requirements at the time of registration so we can best accommodate your needs. \n\nPricing \nB.C. Human Rights and Accommodation Conference – Both Days \n$1\,995.00Add to cart	\n			\n  \n\nB.C. Human Rights and Accommodation Conference – Day 1 \n$1\,195.00Add to cart	\n			\n  \n\nB.C. Human Rights and Accommodation Conference – Day 2 \n$1\,195.00Add to cart	\n			\n  \n\nAttendees can also register for a skills training workshop offered by our Centre for Labour Relations Training & Development\, taking place the day after the conference. The workshop includes panel discussions and hands-on scenarios addressing real workplace human rights challenges and is designed to complement the BC Human Rights and Accommodation Conference. The conference and workshop may be attended separately or as a bundled registration: \n\nB.C. Human Rights and Accommodation Conference & Workshop – Bundle (Conference + Workshop) $2\,690.00Add to cart	\n			\n  \n\nConference Co-Chairs \n\n\n \nJonathan Chapnick\nMember\nBC Human Rights Tribunal \n\n\n \nSara Hanson\nUnion Counsel\nMoore Edgar Lyster LLP \n\n\n \nKristen Woo\nLegal Counsel\nBC Public School Employers’ Association \n\n\n\nAdvisory Committee \n\n\n \nKaity Cooper\nVice-Chair\nB.C. Labour Relations Board \n\n\n \nPeter Eastwood\nUnion Counsel\nHamilton Howell Bain & Gould \n\n\n \nJaime Hoopes\nEmployer Counsel\nRoper Greyell LLP \n\n\n \nLaura Track\nDirector of Human Rights Clinic\nDirector of Public Legal Education\nCommunity Legal Assistance Society (CLAS) \n\n\n \nMegan Tweedie\nDirector\nHuman Rights Office\nSimon Fraser University \n\n\n\nCPD \nConference Day 1\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 5.42 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 5.42 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nConference Day 2\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 5.25 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 5.25 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/b-c-human-rights-and-accommodation-conference/
LOCATION:Pan Pacific Hotel Vancouver\, 999 Canada Pl #300\, Vancouver\, British Columbia\, V6C 3B5\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Law & Labour Policy
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/B.C.-Human-Rights-and-Accommodation-Conference-a.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20251007
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20251009
DTSTAMP:20260420T160006
CREATED:20250204T184709Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250925T181846Z
UID:15873-1759795200-1759967999@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Ottawa Labour Law Conference 2025
DESCRIPTION:Wednesday\, October 8\, 2025 \nBreakfast and Registration: 8:00 am – 9:00 am \n\nOpening Remarks: 9:00 am – 9:05 am \n\nOpening Plenary by Alan Arcand - From Trade Shocks to Job Losses: Weathering the New Economic Landscape - 9:05 am – 9:35 am\n\n\n \nAlan Arcand\nChief Economist\, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) \n\n\nThis address will provide an overview of Canada’s economic outlook\, focusing on the impact of U.S. tariffs and the country’s ongoing competitiveness challenges. We will then examine how these forces\, together with structural factors such as population aging and rising retirement rates\, are reshaping the labour market \, particularly their effects on different demographic groups and what they mean for workers and employers across Canada. \n\nPanel 1: From Hearings to Headlines: Key developments in cases and legislation - 9:35 am – 11:05 am\n\n\n \nKatherine Cotton\nLawyer and Workplace Investigator \n\n\n \nSean Kelly\nDirector and Senior Counsel\nTreasury Board Secretariat – Legal Services \n\n\n \nAmanda Montague-Reinholdt\nUnion Counsel\nRaven Law LLP \n\n\nIn this session\, panelists will delve into recent significant developments in federal and Ontario labour law\, exploring guiding principles and emerging trends in a changing world of work. Panelists will address the latest cases on topics including: \n\nGovernment intervention in collective bargaining disputes raising issues of freedom of association under the Charter of Rights\nEmployment standards and termination\n\ndischarge and discipline\noff-duty conduct\n\n\nEconomic issues\n\nTariffs and economic uncertainty\n\n\nWorkplace rights and responsibilities\n\ndiscrimination\, harassment\, and accommodation\nprivacy\ndrug and alcohol testing\nworkplace investigations\n\n\nFreedom of expression\n\nPanelists will also address recent federal and Ontario legislative and regulatory developments\, such as: \n\nThe Working for Workers’ Act series;\nupdated government guidance regarding requirements under federal supply chain transparency legislation;\nlegislation restricting the use of strike replacement workers passed federally; and\nQuebec legislation on arbitrator selection and government powers to pause or prohibit strikes.\n\nBreak: 11:05 am – 11:20 am \n\nKeynote Speech by Sheila James - DEI and the Political Pendulum - 11:20 am – 11:50 am\n\n\n \nSheila James\nDirectorOffice of I-IDEAS Indigeneity- Inclusion\, Diversity\, Equity\, Access and Social justiceChildren’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) \n\n\nFrom the global reckoning sparked by COVID-19\, the murder of George Floyd\, and findings of unmarked graves of children at former residential schools to the polarizing rhetoric of the present moment and escalating global conflict\, equity\, diversity\, and inclusion (EDI) professionals are navigating workplaces that are increasingly divisive or silenced. This keynote explores the impact of policy changes in the U.S. on Canadian organizations. Which organizations have dropped their EDI programs\, and which have retained them. How has the EDI conversation evolved — and how are professionals moving through these turbulent times. \nLunch: 11:50 am – 1:00 pm \n\nPanel 2: Out of Sight\, Out of Line? Managing Absenteeism\, Undue Hardship and RTO Compliance in Remote Work Arrangements - 1:00 pm – 2:15 pm\n\n\n \nChristine Johnson\nUnion Counsel\nChamp & Associates \n\n\n \nRussell MacCrimmon\nEmployer Counsel\nBird Richard \n\n\nOver five years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic\, employers and unions continue to grapple with issues related to remote\, hybrid\, and in-person work. In this session\, experts will provide insight into  issues currently facing an employee’s return to the office (“RTO”)\, including: absenteeism\, presenteeism\,  and the employer’s duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. Specifically\, the following questions will be addressed: \n\nAs a matter of law\, do employers have the unfettered right to require employees to return to in-person work on a schedule determined by the employer? If there are limits on that right\, what are they? How do workplace policies and collective agreement language affect the matter?\nCan an employee insist on remote work as a form of health-related accommodation? Will an employee be entitled to work from home during pregnancy? Does an employee’s susceptibility to contracting an illness at the workplace warrant accommodation? What is the type and scope of medical information that is required to support these requests?\nIn what circumstances have decision-makers found that employees should be permitted to work from home\, on a full-time or part-time basis\, in order to accommodate obligations related to their family status\, such as childcare or eldercare responsibilities? What kinds of information can employers require to support such a request? How can employers and unions distinguish an employee’s personal preferences from legitimate accommodation needs?\nHow have arbitrators dealt with employees’ requests to work from home because of difficulty commuting to the workplace due to a disability? Does an employer have a duty to accommodate an employee’s commute to work where the employee has a disability? If so\, what is considered reasonable accommodation?\nWhen will the return of an employee to in-person work amount to a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR)? When will an employer be able to establish that undue hardship will arise if an employee is allowed to work remotely?\nHow should employers and unions address increased absenteeism due to RTO? Are there working options that help improve attendance?\nHow should employers and unions address presenteeism\, i.e. when employees attend work knowing that they are ill and maybe contagious?\nWhat aspects of work-from-home or hybrid work arrangements should be specifically addressed in policies or collective agreement provisions. e.g. cost of equipment\, availability for virtual meetings\, office communications?\n\nBreak: 2:15 pm – 2:30 pm \n\nPanel 3: Social Media\, Surveillance\, & AI-Driven Management Decisions: Where are we now? Where are we headed? An interactive session - 2:30 pm – 4:00 pm\n\n\n \nJustin Amaral\nLegal Counsel\nNational Police Federation \n\n\n \nMarie-Pier Dupont\nEmployer counsel\nEmond Harnden \n\n\n \nSteven Gaon\nMediator\, Arbitrator\, Investigator\nADR Ottawa Inc. \n\n\nThis session will provide employers and unions with the best available insight into AI-driven management decisions\, employee surveillance\, and social media. Experienced management and union counsel will join an arbitrator to discuss three hypothetical scenerios relating to AI management\, social media use\, and surveillance. \nSpecific issues to be addressed include: \n\nWhat is the current role of AI-driven tools in management decision-making\, and how is that role expected to evolve in the future?\nIn what circumstances can an employer dismiss an employee for inappropriate social media posts? Where is the line between free speech and offensive speech?\nHow are employers and unions addressing the use of algorithmic management in collective agreements?\nWhat arguments for and against the use of algorithmic management will  arbitrators find most compelling?\nWhat arguments for and against the use of employee surveillance have arbitrators accepted or rejected?\nWhat legal concerns arise when an employer uses AI to assess candidates’ suitability for positions?\n\nConference End: 4:00 pm \n\nTuesday\, October 7\, 2025 \nWorkshop \n*Workshop sold separately from stand-alone conference. \nWorkshop schedule: 9:00 am – 4:00 pm ET \nDesigning for Inclusivity: Supporting and accommodating mental health and neurodivergence at work\n\n\n \nDavid Bennett\nMediator\, Arbitrator\, and Investigator \n\n\n \nOdessa O’Dell\nEmployer Counsel\nBorden Ladner Gervais LLP \n\n\n \nMorgan Rowe\nUnion Counsel\nRavenLaw LLP \n\n\n \nDr. Julia Ryan\nRegistered Psychologist \n\n\nAs awareness of mental health and neurodiversity grows\, workplaces are adapting to create inclusive environments where neurodivergent employees can thrive. This includes understanding their unique strengths\, providing necessary accommodations\, and fostering a culture of acceptance and understanding. This interactive workshop will explore how employers\, unions\, and employees can work together to build inclusive environments that support neurodivergent individuals and those experiencing mental health challenges. Through panel discussion and practical scenarios\, participants will address key questions\, including: \n\nWhat does the term “neurodivergent” include? What are similarities and differences between learning disabilities\, ADHD\, and Autistic Spectrum Disorders (“ASD”)? What can be done to combat stereotypes affecting the inclusion and accommodation of neurodivergent employees and those with mental health issues in the workplace?\nWhat can employers and unions do to reduce the barriers faced by neurodivergent job seekers in the hiring and onboarding processes?\nWhat type of medical information can employers request from neurodivergent employees seeking accommodation\, g. a neuropsychological or psychoeducational evaluation?\nHow can employers\, unions\, and employees address systemic barriers at work throughout the employment relationship?\nWhat accommodations would be most helpful for employees with the following:\n\nLearning disabilities\nASD\nMental health disorders and conditions (i.e. bipolar disorder\, depression\, anxiety)\n\n\nHave legal obligations evolved to include a duty to promote workplace mental health and prevent workplace mental harms such as stress and burnout?\nWhat proactive steps can employers\, unions\, and employees take now to address organizational and individual factors contributing to stress and burnout?\nHow can employers and unions measure efforts and progress toward workplace equity?\nWhat role are unions playing in setting workplace equity policies and programs\, implementing them\, and measuring their progress as it relates to neurodiversity initiatives?\nIs a ‘right to disconnect’ necessary to promote psychological health and safety? If so\, how should this right be defined? Do amendments to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act\, 2000 provide adequate guidance?\nWhat signs may indicate that an employee has a mental health condition or other condition that may require accommodation or support?\nHow can employers and unions identify threats to mental well-being specific to their workplace?\n\nPricing \nOttawa Labour Law Conference$1\,395.00Add to cart	\n			\n  \n\nOttawa Labour Law Conference – Workshop$1\,195.00Add to cart	\n			\n  \n\nOttawa Labour Law Conference & Workshop$2\,195.00Add to cart	\n			\n  \n\nConference Co-Chairs \n\n\n \nSophie Arseneault\nEmployer Counsel\nFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP \n\n\n \nPaul Champ\nUnion Counsel\nChamp & Associates \n\n\n \nDavid Jewitt\nPrincipal\nJewitt Arbitration & Mediation Services Inc. \n\n\n\nAdvisory Committee \n\n\n \nLauren Brecher\nEmployer Counsel\nEmond Harnden LLP \n\n\n \nSasha Hart\nFounder\nSasha Hart Law \n\n\n \nHenry Huang\nCrown Counsel\nTreasury Board Secretariat\, Legal Services Branch\nOntario Ministry of the Attorney General \n\n\n \nJordan Levis-Leduc\nGeneral Counsel\nNational Police Federation \n\n\n\nCPD \nConference CPD\n\n\nThis program (CPD Code) has been approved for 5 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) hours under Section A of the Continuing Professional Development Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\n\n\n\nWorkshop CPD\n\n\nThis program (CPD Code) has been approved for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) hours under Section A of the Continuing Professional Development Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 5.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\n\n\n\nDoubleTree by Hilton Ottawa Downtown\nReserve By:\nSaturday\, September 15\, 2025. After this date\, the special group rate will no longer be available and reservation requests will be based on availability that is subject to the hotel’s rates. \n\n\n\nStart Date\nEnd Date\nRoom Type\nSingle\n\n\nOctober 6\, 2025\nOctober 9\, 2025\nStandard 1 Kg Bed\n$299\n\n\n\nIf any attendees wish to extend their stay by 3 days before the event (October 6\, 2025) or 3 days after the event ends (October 7\, October 9\, 2025)\, they can easily modify their reservation by calling our front desk at 613-230-3033 or emailing us at doubletree@doubletreeottawa.com mentioning the group name example: Lancaster Individual. \nReserve Online
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/ottawa-labour-law-conference-2025/
LOCATION:Rogers Centre Ottawa\, 55 Colonel By Drive\, Ottawa\, Ontario\, K1N 9J2\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Law & Labour Policy
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Ottawa-Labour-Law-Conference-2025-banner-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20250520
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20250522
DTSTAMP:20260420T160006
CREATED:20240820T164441Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250516T173928Z
UID:14650-1747699200-1747871999@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Atlantic Labour Law Conference 2025
DESCRIPTION:Tuesday\, May 20\, 2025Workshop*Workshop sold separately from stand-alone conference. \nWorkshop schedule: 9:00 am – 4:00 pm AT\n(The schedule will run concurrently for all three workshops until 4:00 pm) \nFrom Conflict to Calm: Experts examine proactive and restorative strategies to address workplace conflict\n\n\n \nChris Hattie\nAssociate Vice-President of People and Culture\, Mount Saint Vincent University \n\n\n \nDaniel Wilband\nCounsel\nVanBuskirk Law \n\n\n \nShelley Roach Dumouchel\nDumouchel Dispute Resolution \n\n\nIn the modern polarized world\, how can employers and unions work together to effectively resolve and minimize workplace conflict before it escalates? This interactive workshop provides practical strategies for identifying and addressing conflict. Through panel discussions and hands-on exercises\, attendees will learn to: \n\nIdentify common sources of workplace conflict\, including personality clashes\, differing beliefs\, and interpersonal communication issues.\nUnderstand the distinct roles of unions and employers in resolving disputes\, investigating complaints\, and fostering a harmonious workplace.\nComply with legal requirements for addressing workplace conflict (e.g.\, health and safety requirements\, wrongful dismissal claims\, duties to investigate\, duties of fair representation\, duties to accommodate).\nRecognize when and how employers and unions must monitor or intervene\, including in circumstances where questionable behaviour occurs outside the workplace.\nDevelop clear workplace policies that outline acceptable behavior\, detail internal complaint procedures\, and set guidelines for initiating and conducting investigations and mediation processes.\n\nWednesday\, May 21\, 2025Introduction: 9:00 am – 9:05 am AT \nPanel 1: The Latest in Labour: Significant recent cases and legislative developments - 9:05 am – 10:20 am AT\n\n\n \nGeoffrey Breen\nEmployer Counsel\nCox & Palmer \n\n\n \nDale Darling\, K.C.\nMediator and Arbitrator \n\n\n \nChristina R. Kennedy\nSenior Labour Relations Counsel\nAir Line Pilots Association\, International \n\n\nIn this session\, experts will examine recent significant developments in federal and provincial labour law. Panelists will address the latest cases on topics including: \n\nthe legality of recent federal government interventions pausing or prohibiting strikes in the railway\, postal\, and other sectors;\nimplications of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Casino case denying collective bargaining rights to front line supervisors;\nQuebec Court of Appeal decision upholding role of unions in selection of interest arbitrators;\ndiscrimination\, harassment\, and accommodation;\nemployee expression of political views and/or religious beliefs at work;\ntrends in discipline and damage awards;\nupdates on privacy\, surveillance\, and monitoring;\nremote work — employer discretion and employee entitlement;\nissues of justification for substance use testing; and\noccupational health and safety — liability and damages.\n\nPanelists will also address recent legislative and regulatory developments\, such as: \n\nupdated government guidance regarding requirements under federal supply chain transparency legislation;\nnew collaborative return-to-work obligations introduced under Nova Scotia’s workers’ compensation legislation;\nNew Brunswick’s new accessibility legislation;\nnew sick leave employee entitlements and restrictions on employers’ entitlements to medical notes for short-term sick leave; and\nNew Quebec legislation on arbitrator selection and government powers to pause or prohibit strikes.\n\nFinal selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most newsworthy developments in a changing economic and political landscape. \nBreak: 10:20 am – 10:35 am AT \nPanel 2: About Time: Examining time theft\, performance\, and productivity in the age of AI and remote work - 10:35 am – 11:35 am AT\n\n\n \nLucia DeMaio\nLabour Relations Lawyer\nAssociation of University of New Brunswick Teachers (AUNBT) \n\n\n \nChris Peddigrew\nArbitrator\, Mediator and Investigator \nPeddigrew Wade Law \nVice-Chairperson\nNewfoundland and Labrador Labour Relations Board \n\n\n \nTwila Reid\nEmployer Counsel\nStewart McKelvey \n\n\n \nJake van der Laan\nProfessor\nDepartment of Computer Science\nUniversity of New Brunswick \n\n\nCan employers monitor employee activity to ensure wages correspond to hours worked? In this webinar\, experts will examine the impact of AI and remote workplaces on work habits\, provide practical guidance on the scope and limitations of workplace surveillance\, and discuss arbitrator responses to claims of employee “time theft.” Panelists will address: \n\nWhat constitutes employee “time theft”?\nHow can AI be used for workplace surveillance? What steps should workplaces take to develop policies that comply with Bill C-27\, the Digital Charter Implementation Act (which includes the introduction of the Artificial Intelligence Data Act)?\nIs the nature of the workplace relevant when implementing surveillance? Is the sensitivity of the information relevant?\nIs reasonable suspicion of “time theft” required before implementing workplace surveillance? Can surveillance originally implemented for safety or security purposes be used to monitor employee productivity?\nIs the scope of surveillance different for remote workers?\nWhat disciplinary measures do adjudicators and arbitrators consider appropriate for “time theft”?\nAre there limits to an employer’s retention and use of employee information obtained through surveillance?\n\nBreak: 11:35 am – 11:50 am AT \nKeynote Speech by Michael Marin\, K.C. - Employee Privacy in the MUSH Sector and Beyond - 11:50 am – 12:20 pm AT\n\n\n \nMichael Marin\, K.C.\nDean and Associate Professor\nFaculty of Law\nUniversity of New Brunswick \n\n\nFollowing the Supreme Court’s judgment in York Region District School Board v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario\, the extent to which s.8 of the Charter protects the privacy of employees in the public sector has become one of the most talked about workplace law issues in Canada. While labour arbitrators have long recognized the privacy rights of employees\, they often did so without explicit reference to the Charter. In addition\, York and other cases suggest that the Charter may soon extend to other workplaces in the “MUSH” sector\, notably universities\, which have long been considered Charter-free zones. At the same time\, the blending of personal and work-related uses of technology has resulted in a line of arbitral cases that applies Charter-like reasoning to private sector workplaces. \nThis presentation will discuss York‘s practical implications for both public and private sector workplaces. Although the Charter does not generally apply to the private sector\, the judgment’s emphasis on the employment context in assessing the reasonableness of a search is useful guidance. And the Supreme Court’s “Charter-always” approach will have implications for how counsel and arbitrators tackle cases that engage privacy concerns in the public sector. Overall\, these developments reflect a trend toward formalizing the recognition of employees’ right to privacy no matter where they work. But\, in typical Charter fashion\, this right is not absolute and may be invaded by employers for legitimate reasons and if personal information is not unduly exposed. \nLunch Break: 12:20 pm – 1:20 pm AT \nPanel 3: What's Fresh in Fact-Finding? The latest on best practices for fair and effective workplace investigations - 1:20 pm – 2:30 pm AT\n\n\n \nJudy Begley\nLawyer\, Workplace Investigator\, and Mediator\nBegley Law \n\n\n \nJoël Michaud\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nKathleen O’Neill\, K.C.\nEmployer Counsel\nCox & Palmer \n\n\nConducting workplace investigations is a delicate and complex process that demands fairness\, precision\, and a commitment to best practices. The panel will examine recent caselaw addressing workplace investigations and will explore key principles\, best practices\, and emerging guidance about conducting reasonable and effective investigations. The panel will address a series of questions including: \n\nWhat lessons can be learned from recent caselaw as to what constitutes a fair and adequate investigation process?\nWhat are best practices for countering unconscious and implicit bias and otherwise ensuring stereotypes and discrimination do not impact the investigatory process?\nWhat is the role of the union in an investigation? What are the limitations of union involvement?\nHow much latitude do employers have to order investigations into off-duty conduct? Can workplace investigators request access to employees’ personal devices\, such as laptops or cellphones\, used primarily or exclusively for personal purposes?\nWhat strategies can workplace parties implement to 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 lessons can be learned from recent caselaw about what information is protected in the investigative process?\nIn what circumstances have arbitrators given remedies for an employer’s failure to investigate allegations?\nWhat should employers and unions be looking for when reviewing investigation reports?\n\nBreak: 2:30 pm – 2:45 pm AT \nPanel 4: Is it Discrimination? Or Isn’t It? An interactive panel seeks answers from actual case studies - 2:45 pm – 4:00 pm AT\n\n\n \nGreg Anthony\nEmployer Counsel\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nCarey Majid\nExecutive Director\nNewfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission \n\n\n \nKyle Rees\nUnion Counsel\nO’Dea Earle \n\n\nIn this interactive session\, panelists will address scenarios based on real cases involving allegations of discrimination\, examining legal principles for identifying and addressing subtle\, systemic\, and complex forms of discrimination as well as meeting obligations such as the duty to accommodate. Panelists will address questions such as: \n\nHow have arbitrators and human rights tribunals resolved evidentiary and credibility challenges when determining whether discrimination has occurred?\nWhat contextual factors have decision-makers considered in determining whether conduct which may seem innocuous on its face is\, in fact\, a subtle form of discrimination?\nWhat matters should be considered in determining whether systemic discrimination has adversely impacted an employee?\nHow does the test for discrimination differ depending on the ground of discrimination that is alleged? For example\, what unique considerations apply when determining whether an employee has been discriminated against on the basis of religion?\nWhen will a rule or standard that on its face appears to be discriminatory be justified as a bona fide occupational requirement? When will accommodating an employee amount to undue hardship?\nIn what circumstances will employers be held liable for the discriminatory conduct of employees toward other employees in the workplace?\n\nScenarios will be finalized in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the most relevant cases. \nClosing remarks: 4:00 pm AT \nAtlantic Labour Law Conference Bundle: Conference + Pre-Conference Workshop$1\,495.00Read more	\n			\n  \nAtlantic Labour Law Conference – Pre-Conference Workshop$895.00Read more	\n			\n  \nAtlantic Labour Law Conference$995.00Read more	\n			\n  \nAtlantic Labour Law ConferenceConference Co-Chairs\n\n \nJamie Eddy\nEmployer Counsel\nCox and Palmer \n\n\n \nSophie Landry Mockler\nLegal Counsel\nNew Brunswick Union (NBU) \n\n\n \nLynne Poirier\nArbitrator/Mediator\nVice-Chairperson\nCanada Industrial Relations Board \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nBrenda Comeau\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nMichael Keliher\nLabour Relations Lawyer\nAssociation of University of New Brunswick Teachers (AUNBT) \n\n\n \nTracy McPhee\nLegal Counsel\nLabour Relations & Compensation Analysis\nHealth Association Nova Scotia \n\n\n \nIan Pickard\nEmployer Counsel\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\nCPDConference CPD\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Nova Scotia for 5.25 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may consider counting this program for 5.25 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of CPHR Newfoundland & Labrador may consider counting this program for 5.25 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the CPHR PEI may consider counting this program for 5.25 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nWorkshop CPD\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Nova Scotia for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may consider counting this program for 5.3 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of CPHR Newfoundland & Labrador may consider counting this program for 5.3 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the CPHR PEI may consider counting this program for 5.3 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/atlantic-labour-law-conference-2025/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Law & Labour Policy
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Atlantic-Labour-Law-Conference-2025-banner.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Halifax:20250404T110000
DTEND;TZID=America/Halifax:20250404T170000
DTSTAMP:20260420T160006
CREATED:20241205T183445Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250318T181226Z
UID:15431-1743764400-1743786000@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Grievance and Interest Arbitration in the University Sector
DESCRIPTION:ProgramIn this virtual workshop\, experts will address key issues and trends in interest arbitration and grievance arbitration in the university sector\, as reflected in the decisions of leading arbitrators across Canada. Attendees can expect to learn principles and practices related to the following: \n$1\,195.00Read more	\n			\n \n\nAcademic freedom and the limits on faculty’s “free speech” rights\nSalary disputes and remedial options\nPension and benefit issues\, before and after retirement\nPrivacy concerns and access to information\nThe role and results of grievance arbitration\nFaculty bargaining and its outcomes\nChallenging promotion and merit pay decisions\nFaculty rights to design courses\, assign marks\, determine content\nUniversity governance issues: the roles of the President\, Senate and Faculty Association\n\n\nAdvancing EDI\nEnsuring accommodation\, combatting discrimination\nChallenging discipline\nDefending against harassment\nNavigating investigations\, invoking protections\nAppointments: tenured\, tenure stream\, teaching\, sessional\, contractually limited\nWorkload\nJob security: closures\, cutbacks\, abolition of programs\n\nAccompanied by materials\, developed by Lancaster House Lawyers\, that offer extensive case law analysis\, legislative updates\, summaries\, and practical guidance—all thoroughly researched and designed for easy reference.\nSpeakers\n\n \nChris Albertyn\nArbitrator \n\n\n \nWassim Garzouzi\nRavenlaw LLP \n\n\n \nJennifer S. Russell\nRoper Greyell LLP \n\n\nCPDConference CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Alberta for 4.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR BC & Yukon for 4.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 4.5 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) hours under Section A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by the Law Society of British Columbia for 4.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 4.5 Substantive hours; 0 Professionalism hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may consider counting this program for 4.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 4.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/grievance-and-interest-arbitration-in-the-university-sector/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:Labour Law & Labour Policy,Skills Training,Workshop
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/IA-University-Sector-Apr-2025.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20241016
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20241019
DTSTAMP:20260420T160006
CREATED:20240214T201811Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20241009T155744Z
UID:12304-1729036800-1729295999@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Ottawa Labour Law Conference
DESCRIPTION:OverviewThe Ottawa Labour Law Conference is an annual event that serves as a vital forum for professionals\, academics\, and policymakers in the field of labor law. This conference gathers together experts and practitioners from across Canada and beyond to engage in meaningful discussions\, share insights\, and explore the latest developments in labor law and employment relations. With a focus on fostering dialogue and collaboration\, the conference provides a platform for attendees to gain a deeper understanding of the ever-evolving legal landscape that shapes labor relations and worker rights. It plays a pivotal role in shaping the future of labor law in Canada by facilitating the exchange of knowledge\, best practices\, and innovative ideas among those dedicated to advancing workers’ rights and the broader field of labor law. \nConference Co-Chairs\n\n \nWassim Garzouzi\nUnion Counsel\nRavenLaw LLP \n\n\n \nJudith Parisien\nEmployer Counsel\nFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP\n\n\n \nChris Rootham\nBoard Member\nFederal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nJena Montgomery\nCounsel\nTreasury Board Secretariat Legal Services\nDepartment of Justice \n\n\n \nOdessa O’Dell\nEmployer Counsel\nBorden Ladner Gervais LLP \n\n\n \nJennifer Duff\nUnion Counsel\nShields Hunt Duff Strachan \n\n\n \nAaron Lemkow\nLegal Counsel\nOntario Nurses’ Association (ONA) \n\n\nWednesday\, October 16\, 2024Workshop*Workshop sold separately from stand-alone conference.After the Investigation: Defusing conflicts and restoring workplace relationships - 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.\n\n\n \nRoger Beaudry\nArbitrator/Mediator and Dispute Prevention/Resolution Consultant\nAptus Conflict Solutions \n\n\n \nMadeline Hall\nLawyer & Investigator\nMortimer Khoraych Workplace Investigations and Restorations \n\n\n \nChristopher Edwards\nEmployer Counsel\nSoloway Wright \n\n\n \nLaura Ross\nBilingual Senior Officer\, Legal Branch\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\nAllegations of bullying or harassment\, breaches of respectful workplace policies\, or other inappropriate behaviour often result in a formal investigation\, culminating in a report with findings and recommendations. However\, the investigation (and the imposition of discipline where misconduct is found to have occurred) may be only the first step in addressing conflicts that have emerged between co-workers. Indeed\, the investigation process itself may have the unintended result of further fracturing the workplace\, by pitting one group of employees against another\, or employees against supervisors. In this workshop\, experienced facilitators will share their expertise with participants in order to provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to restore productive relationships after the investigation\, and to ensure that genuine closure is achieved. \n\nWhat are the most effective approaches to communicating with employees about the investigation while it is ongoing and after it has been completed? How can the employer assure employees that the investigation process is fair and objective\, and that it properly balances the rights and expectations of different groups within the workplace?\nWho is entitled to be apprised of allegations? And of statements by other parties to the investigation?\nWho is entitled to be advised of the conclusions in an investigation report? When might it be advisable to disclose the report’s findings with others in the workplace?\nWhat role does solicitor-client privilege play in the investigation process? Litigation privilege? Common law rules relating to confidentiality?\nIs it beneficial to hold a post-investigation meeting with the affected employees\, or the staff as a whole\, to discuss the outcome and to explain what changes will be implemented going forward?\nIn what circumstances should the employer consider hiring a professional mediator to deal with ongoing conflicts? When is one-on-one counselling appropriate?\nWhen does legislation require that a neutral investigator be appointed? When should this be done\, regardless of legislative requirements?\nDoes an apology by the offending parties play a useful role in defusing lingering tensions? What if an employee who behaved inappropriately is unremorseful and unwilling to accept responsibility?\nWhen should consideration be given to reassigning an employee (or employees) to a different work area?\nAfter an investigation\, what steps should be taken to reinforce expectations regarding applicable policies and acceptable behaviour at work?\n\nThursday\, October 17\, 2024Opening Remarks: 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. \nPanel 1 - Current and Critical: Major developments in legislation and caselaw - 9:05 a.m. – 10:35 a.m.\n\n\n \nDavid Olsen\nBoard Member\nFederal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) \n\n\n \nSophie Arseneault\nEmployer Counsel\nFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP \n\n\n \nAndrew Montague-Reinholdt\nUnion Counsel\nNelligan O’Brien Payne LLP \n\n\nIn this session\, expert panelists will examine recent significant developments in federal and provincial labour law. Panelists will address the latest cases on topics such as: \n\nDiscrimination\, harassment\, and accommodation;\nFreedom of association;\nWorkplace investigations;\nDiscipline;\nPrivacy; and\nRemote work.\n\nThe panel will also examine recent legislative and other initiatives\, such as: \n\nFederal legislation to ban the use of strike replacement workers;\nThe report of the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force and related changes to the Act;\nRequiring companies to report the use of forced labour and child labour in the international supply chains; and\nThe Ontario government’s Working for Workers legislative series.\n\nFinal selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most newsworthy developments. \nBreak: 10:35 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. \nPanel 2 - Thinking Outside the Bots: Arbitrators weigh the pros and cons of artificial intelligence in labour relations - 10:50 a.m. – 12:05 p.m.\n\n\n \nClaire Kane Boychuk\nUnion Counsel \n\n\n \nJohn McLuckie\nUnion Counsel\nJewitt McLuckie & Associates \n\n\n \nAndrew Tremayne\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\n\n \nAndrew Vey\nEmployer Counsel\nVey WIllets LLP \n\n\n\nGiven the lack of Canadian arbitration decisions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to recruit and manage employees\, this session will provide employers and unions with the best available insight into how grievances against such uses of AI would be mounted\, defended\, and decided. Experienced management and union counsel will join an arbitrator to discuss a hypothetical union challenge to algorithmic management and to a program designed to vet job candidates. \nSpecific issues to be addressed include: \n\nWhat principles in existing federal or provincial arbitral jurisprudence or legislative provisions could be invoked to challenge an employer’s use of algorithmic management (i.e. use of AI and data to manage employees)?\nCan employers rely on management rights to justify the use of AI to evaluate employee performance and manage employees?\nWhat arguments for and against the use of algorithmic management would arbitrators likely find most compelling?\nWhat legal concerns are raised when an employer uses AI to assess candidates’ suitability for positions?\nWhat privacy concerns are raised by using AI to evaluate job applicants based on their internet activity?\n\nNetworking Lunch: 12:05 p.m. – 1:05 p.m. \nPanel 3 - Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Addressing arbitrator selection\, scheduling issues\, and other obstacles to effective arbitration - 1:05 p.m. – 2:20 p.m.\n\n\n \nArchana Mathew\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\n \nMorgan Rowe\nUnion Counsel\nRavenLaw LLP \n\n\n \nGrace Skowronski\nSenior Legal Counsel\nCanada Post \n\n\nArbitration\, once heralded for its efficiency\, is grappling with hurdles that may erode confidence in the process. Parties and practitioners have raised concerns regarding judicialization\, timeliness\, and arbitrator selection. In this panel\, experts will address the following: \n\nIs there a shortage of neutrals? If so\, what is the effect on the arbitration process? On scheduling? On confidence in the process? How can the shortage of arbitrators\, if it exists\, be remedied?\nWhat common bottlenecks do parties encounter in the arbitral process? How can labour practitioners eliminate unnecessary delays? Does the growing legalism of arbitration undermine its unique advantages\, or is it necessary to ensure procedural protections for parties?\nWhat options exist outside of the conventional arbitration process? .g. Med-arb\, arb-med? Final offer selection? In what circumstances should parties consider these alternatives?\nCan parties reduce arbitration timelines by participating in a virtual or hybrid format? Is there room to automate arbitration processes?\nWhat criteria should parties consider when selecting an arbitrator?\nWhat factors should labour ministries take into account in appointing arbitrators? If expertise and acceptability to the labour relations community are relevant factors\, how should they be measured? How can the Labour ministry’s appointment process be made more transparent? More accountable in terms of ensuring the fair and equitable assignment of cases?\n\nBreak: 2:20 p.m. – 2:35 p.m. \nPanel 4 - Is it Harassment or Isn’t It? An interactive panel based on actual case studies - 2:35 p.m. – 3:50 p.m.\n\n\n \nChris Davidson\nWorkplace Investigator\nTurnpenney Milne LLP \n\n\n \nTia Hazra\nConsultation Team Lead\nProfessional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) \n\n\n \nLarissa Volinets Schieven \nCounsel\nTreasury Board Secretariat Legal Services\nDepartment of Justice Canada \n\n\nIn many instances conduct or comments will clearly meet the definition of harassment. However\, in other cases\, debate may arise as to whether the alleged harasser knew or ought reasonably to have known that their behaviour was unwelcome\, offensive\, or harmful. In this session\, panelists will highlight the degree to which reasonable minds may disagree about whether comments or conduct constitute harassment\, probe the reasons behind such disagreement\, and address issues 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 reasonably be 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 unwelcome?\nDoes workplace culture play any role in determining whether conduct or comments amount to harassment?\nIs the analysis of whether conduct constitutes harassment affected by a friendship or previous romantic relationship between the complainant and respondent? What about power imbalances or lack thereof?\nHow is the reasonableness of management’s response assessed by arbitrators?\n\nClosing remarks: 3:50 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. \nFriday\, October 18\, 2024Opening Remarks: 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. \nPanel 5 - Beliefs and Boundaries: Reconciling employee free speech and legitimate employer concerns - 9:05 a.m. – 10:35 a.m.\n\n\n \nDavid Jewitt\nArbitrator\, Mediator\, Workplace Investigator \n\n\n \nLauren Brecher\nEmployer Counsel\nEmond Harnden LLP \n\n\n \nDavid Yazbeck\nDirector\, National Labour Relations\nProfessional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) \n\n\nHow can employers balance freedom of expression under the Charter with the need to maintain a productive and respectful workplace? In this session\, panelists will address: \n\nDo employees have the right to express their views on potentially controversial and/or political matters at work?\nWhat criteria should employers and unions consider when determining whether an employee’s speech or actions pose a legitimate concern to the organization’s reputation or operations? What actions should employers or unions take when employees’ expressions border on being disrespectful or offensive\, but are not overtly harmful?\nCan employers or unions set policies governing conduct for off work or social media expression? If so\, what are best practices for ensuring these policies respect individual freedoms and the reputation and operations of the workplace?\nCan employers monitor employee expressions outside the workplace or on social media? Can employers discipline employees for such expressions?\nWhat is the extent of a union’s duty to represent members who face work-related consequences for potentially polarizing beliefs or actions? When will a union’s decision not to represent a member constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation?\nHow can employers and unions effectively communicate expectations regarding employee expression\, appropriate workplace conduct\, and appropriate off-work conduct?\n\nBreak: 10:35 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. \nPanel 6 - Bar None: Achieving gender inclusivity in the workplace - 10:50 a.m. – 12:20 p.m.\n\n\n \nTyler Boyce\nExecutive Director\nThe Enchante Network \n\n\n \nLori Harreman\nLegal Coordinator\nOntario Nurses’ Association \n\n\n \nDan Irving\, PhD\nAssociate Professor\nInstitute of Interdisciplinary Studies\nCarleton University \n\n\n \nGrace McDonell\nEmployer Counsel\nMcCarthy Tétrault \n\n\nEnsuring genuine inclusion of transgender and gender-diverse individuals in the workplace contributes to providing a healthy\, safe\, and equitable work environment. In this session\, expert panelists will examine ways in which employers\, unions\, and employees can collaborate to create an inclusive workplace for all\, including through collective agreement language\, policies\, and other working arrangements. Final topics will be selected in consultation with panelists in the weeks preceding the conference. \nNetworking Lunch: 12:20 p.m. – 1:20 p.m. \nFireside Chat - 1:20 p.m. – 2:05 p.m.\n\n\n \nMadame Justice Karen Jensen\nJudge\nOntario Superior Court of Justice \n\n\n \nMeg Steele\nChief Human Resources Officer\nOttawa Police Service \n\n\nBreak: 2:05 p.m. – 2:20 p.m. \nPanel 7 - Using Non-Disclosure Agreements to Settle Harassment and Other Workplace Disputes: Is the case for abolition compelling? - 2:20 p.m. – 3:50 p.m.\n\n\n \nDavid Bennett\nMediator\, Arbitrator\, Investigator \n\n\n \nStephanie Lewis\nEmployer Counsel\nDentons \n\n\n \nMiriam Martin\nBarrister & Solicitor\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\nNon-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are contractual agreements designed to maintain confidentiality among involved parties. While NDAs are frequently used in workplace settlements\, there is increasing apprehension about the potential of NDAs to silence victims of discrimination and harassment while shielding employers from reputational damage and other liabilities. In this session\, a panel of experts will address the following: \n\nWhat legislative/regulatory changes have been adopted respecting the use of NDAs in workplace disputes?\nHow are NDAs currently being used in workplace disputes?\nWhat information can be covered by an NDA?\nWhat are the negative ramifications of using NDAs in workplace disputes? What are the potential benefits? How might NDAs impact the victims of harassment and/or violence?\nWhat circumstances may render an NDA unenforceable?\nWhat happens if an employee\, former employee\, or the employer violates an NDA? How have courts and/or arbitrators treated breaches of NDAs?\n\nClosing remarks: 3:50 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. \nWorkshop - CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for Continuing Professional Development 5.5 hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nCPD for Members of the Law Society of Ontario: 5.5 Substantive Hours; 0 Professionalism Hours.\n\n\n\n\nConference - CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 10.5 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) hours under Section A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n\n\n\n\n \n\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 10.5 substantive hours; 0 professionalism hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/ottawa-labour-law-conference-2024/
LOCATION:Rogers Centre Ottawa\, 55 Colonel By Drive\, Ottawa\, Ontario\, K1N 9J2\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Law & Labour Policy
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/oll-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240506
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240509
DTSTAMP:20260420T160006
CREATED:20231109T142244Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240723T181944Z
UID:11158-1714953600-1715212799@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Atlantic Labour Law Conference: Current practices\, emerging trends
DESCRIPTION:Atlantic Labour Law ConferenceConference Co-Chairs\n\n \nChris Peddigrew\nArbitrator / Mediator / Investigator\nPeddigrew Wade Law \n\n\n \nLeah Kutcher\nIn-House Counsel\nNova Scotia Teachers Union \n\n\n \nJames LeMesurier\nEmployer Counsel\nStewart McKelvey \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nErin Delaney\nSolicitor\nGovernment of Newfoundland & Labrador \n\n\n \nJill Houlihan\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nRyan McCarville\nEmployer Counsel\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nPaula Trites\nLabour Relations Officer\nNew Brunswick Union of Public Employees (NBU) \n\n\nMonday\, May 6\, 2024*Workshop sold separately from stand-alone conference. \nWorkshopDifficult Accommodations: Responding to denial\, defensiveness\, and personality disorders\n\n\n \nMichael MacDonald\nManager\, Health Services\nJazz Aviation \n\n\n \nBrad Proctor\nEmployer Counsel\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nWayne Thistle\nArbitrator/Mediator\nInnovative Dispute Resolution Inc. \n\n\nAccommodating employees with disabilities that impair their judgment\, perception\, and often their very ability to participate in the accommodation process itself can be challenging. Working through interactive exercises with the guidance of experts\, participants will develop the knowledge and skills to: \n\nComply with management and union responsibilities surrounding the accommodation process\, the duty to inquire\, obtaining medical records\, and related privacy legislation;\nUnderstand how common disabilities and related stigma may impede a worker’s ability to participate in the accommodation process;\nApply effective communication skills when interacting with defensive or resistant employees;\nComply with legal obligations when workers are unwilling or unable to participate in the accommodation process; and\nIdentify when the threshold of undue hardship has been reached.\n\nSchedule\nBreakfast and registration: 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. \nIntroductory remarks: 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. \nWorkshop: 9:05 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. \nBreak: 10:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. \nWorkshop: 10:45 a.m. – 11:55 a.m. \nLunch: 11:55 a.m. – 1:05 p.m. \nWorkshop: 1:05 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. \nBreak: 2:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. \nWorkshop and closing remarks: 2:45 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. \nTuesday\, May 7\, 20248:00 – 9:00: Registration and breakfast\n9:00 – 9:05: Opening Remarks \n9:05 – 10:35: Panel 1 - Atlantic Update: Experts examine key cases and legislative developments\n\n\n \nNancy F. Barteaux\, K.C.\nEmployer Counsel\nFounder and Principal\nBarteaux Labour and Employment Lawyers Inc. \n\n\n \nJames Farrell\nSolicitor and Staff Representative\nFFAW-Unifor \n\n\n \nBrittany Keating\nPartner\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nJohn Whelan\nArbitrator\nWhelan Dispute Resolution \n\n\nIn this session\, experts will analyze noteworthy legal developments\, discussing key cases and recent legislation. Topics to be addressed include: \n\nPrivacy;\nDiscipline;\nHealth and safety/workers’ compensation; and\n\nPanelists will also discuss recent provincial and federal legislative amendments\, including: \n\nPay equity;\nPay transparency;\nPensions;\nStrike replacements;\nSick time/sick notes;\nMinimum wages; and\nSupply chain transparency.\n\nFinal selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference ensuring coverage of the latest and most important developments. \n10:35 – 10:50: Break \n10:50 – 12:05: Panel 2 - Beliefs and Boundaries: Reconciling employee free speech and employer concerns\n\n\n \nIsabelle Keeler\nEmployer Counsel\nCox & Palmer \n\n\n \nLynne Poirier\nArbitrator/Mediator \nVice-Chair\nCanada Industrial Relations Board \n\n\n \nDaniel Wilband\nCounsel\nLawson Creamer \n\n\nA tension sometimes arises 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? In this session\, a panel of experts will address these questions: \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\n12:05 – 1:25: Networking Lunch \n1:25 – 2:10: Keynote - The Burnout Burger: The role of psychological safety in preventing burnout in the workplace\n\n\n \nDr. Dayna Lee-Baggley\nFounder & CEO\, Dr. Lee-Baggley and Associates \nAssistant Professor\, Faculty of Medicine\, Dalhousie University\nAdjunct Professor\, Psychology Department\, Saint Mary’s University \n\n\nRates of burnout have never been higher; however\, the conventional focus on self-care falls short. In this innovative presentation\, Dr. Dayna will present a more comprehensive strategy to address burnout known as the “Burnout Burger.” The Burnout Burger highlights that burnout is not just the responsibility of the individual. Instead\, the individual is squeezed between organizational and cultural factors that also influence burnout. Dr. Dayna will present the science of burnout and actionable strategies to address the Burnout Burger\, including the role of psychological safety in targeting burnout. Attendees will gain insight into cutting-edge\, evidence-based tips and techniques\, empowering individuals\, leaders\, and workplaces to effectively address burnout and foster the well-being of both employees and organizations. \n2:10 – 2:25: Break \n2:25 – 3:40: Panel 3 - Is it Harassment or Not? An interactive panel with case studies and scenarios\n\n\n \nFrank Demont\, K.C.\nArbitrator\nResolve Arbitration & Mediation Services \n\n\n \nChristina Kennedy\nSenior Labour Relations Counsel\nAir Line Pilots Association\, International \n\n\n \nMichelle A. Willette\nEmployer Counsel\nCox & Palmer \n\n\nIn many instances conduct or comments will clearly meet the definition of harassment. However\, in other cases debate may arise as to whether the alleged harasser knew or ought reasonably to have known that their behaviour was unwelcome\, offensive\, or harmful. In this session\, panelists 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?\nFrom the employer’s perspective\, how is the reasonableness of management action assessed to determine whether or not it constitutes harassment?\n\n3:40 – 3:45: Closing remarks \nWednesday\, May 8\, 20248:00 – 9:00: Registration and breakfast\n9:00 – 9:05: Opening Remarks \n9:05 – 10:20: Panel 4 - Facing the Public: Protecting workers from harassment and ensuring a safe workplace\n\n\n \nKiersten Amos\nEmployer Counsel\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nChantelle MacDonald Newhook\nArbitrator/Mediator/Investigator\nDispute Winners \nVice-Chair\nNewfoundland and Labrador Labour Relations Board \n\n\n \nKyle Rees\nUnion Counsel\nO’Dea Earle \n\n\nMany forward-facing employees may experience violence and/or harassment from third parties such as clients\, students\, patients\, customers\, etc. In this session\, experts will explore the scope of an employer’s legal duty to prevent third party violence against their employees\, the rights and duties of employees in these circumstances\, and the union’s role in preventing and responding to violence experienced by their membership. Questions to be addressed include: \n\nWhat legal obligations do employers have to protect their employees from third-party harassment? Should workplace violence and harassment policies include specific provisions for dealing with third parties who become violent towards employees?\nWhat steps must an employer take when they become aware that their staff are being harassed by a third party?\nDoes the legal obligation to protect the health and safety of employees extend to violence and harassment that occurs off-site? How do these obligations apply in the context of remote work?\nWhat obligations do unions have to support members who are facing violence and/or harassment from third parties/the public? In what circumstances should unions grieve an employer’s failure to protect employees from third party violence and/or pursue remedies through the Ministry of Labour/Labour Relations Board?\nWhat is the scope of an employee’s duty to report concerns about a patient\, student\, customer\, or client?\nWhat legal recourse is available to employees who have experienced violence or harassment from members of the public? In what circumstances may an employer be liable for discrimination and harassment perpetrated by non-employees or members of the public? What factors will an arbitrator consider when making this determination?\nIn what circumstances can employees refuse work on the basis that they believe they will experience violence from members of the public? Are there circumstances where workers who are excluded from the general right to refuse unsafe work under occupational health and safety legislation (i.e. police officers\, firefighters\, correctional officers\, and health care workers)\, can refuse unsafe work on the basis that a patient/client/ etc. poses a danger?\nWhat are the implications of Bill C-3\, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code\, which outlines enhanced protections for health care workers under the Criminal Code?\n\n10:20 – 10:35: Break \n10:35 – 11:50: Panel 5 - Working towards inclusion: Removing barriers to recruitment\, retention\, and promotion\n\n\n \nDavid Delaney\nEmployee Relations Consultant and Employment Equity Coordinator\nHalifax Employers Association \n\n\n \nMichael Gillingham\nUnion Counsel\nMartin Whalen Hennebury Stamp \n\n\n \nCarey Majid\nExecutive Director\nNewfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission \n\n\nAs concepts of workplace equality\, diversity\, and inclusion continue to evolve\, many organizations are turning to new initiatives to address systemic discrimination in workplaces. In this session\, experts will discuss: \n\nHow can systemic discrimination manifest in the workplace\, and how can it be identified?\nHow can employers and unions proactively address impacts of systemic discrimination in the workplace?\nHow can systemic barriers manifest during hiring processes? How can employers best implement fair hiring practices to avoid discrimination and promote a more diverse workforce?\nHow can systemic barriers manifest during promotion processes? How can employers and unions best address and combat these barriers?\nWhat policy changes can employers implement to prevent unintentional discriminatory consequences?\nIs collective agreement language effective in fostering equity and creating a respectful workplace culture?\nWhat steps are unions and workplaces taking to advocate for non-discriminatory workplace practices?\n\n11:50 – 1:00: Lunch \n1:00 – 2:15: Panel 6 - Investigating Investigations: Examining current practices and recent caselaw\n\n\n \nLisa Gallivan\nArbitrator\, Mediator and Workplace Investigator \n\n\n \nAndrea MacNevin\nEmployer Counsel\nBarteaux Labour and Employment Lawyers Inc. \n\n\n \nRon Pizzo\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \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. The 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?\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 been 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? How should investigatory meetings be approached where the person being interviewed has or is suspected to have a disability?\nHow much latitude do employers have to order investigations into off-duty conduct? May workplace investigators demand to examine employees’ personal devices\, such as laptops or cellphones which employees use exclusively or primarily for personal purposes?\nHow should employers and unions approach investigations into workplace conduct which may have a criminal element?\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?\n\n2:15 – 2:30: Break \n2:30 – 3:45: Panel 7 - Addressing the Unknown: Arbitrators respond to the use of artificial intelligence\n\n\n \nRobert Basque\nArbitrator\nForbes Roth Basque \n\n\n \nBrenda Comeau\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nNoella Martin\nEmployer Counsel\nBurchell Wickwire Bryson LLP \n\n\nGiven the lack of Canadian arbitration decisions on the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to select and manage employees\, this session will provide employers and unions with the best available insight into how grievances against such uses of AI would be mounted\, defended\, and decided. Experienced union and management counsel will join an arbitrator to discuss a union challenge to algorithmic management drawn from US caselaw and a challenge to a program designed to vet job candidates. Specific issues to be addressed include: \n\nWhat principles in existing arbitral jurisprudence or legislative provisions could be invoked to challenge an employer’s use of algorithmic management (i.e. use of AI and data to manage employees)?\nCan employers rely on management rights to justify the use of AI to evaluate employee performance and manage employees?\nWhat arguments for and against the use of algorithmic management would arbitrators in the Atlantic provinces find most compelling?\nWhat legal concerns are raised when an employer uses AI to assess candidates’ suitability for positions?\nWhat privacy concerns are raised by using AI to evaluate job applicants based on their internet activity?\n\n3:45 – 3:50: Closing remarks \nCPDConference CPD\n\nThis program has been approved for 9.75 Continuing Professional Development hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n \n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Nova Scotia for 9.75 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may consider counting this program for 9.75 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 9.75 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of CPHR Newfoundland & Labrador may consider counting this program for 9.75 Continuing Professional Development hours.\n\n\n\nWorkshop CPD\n\nThis program has been approved for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours under Category A of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association (HRPA).\n \n\n\n\n \n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Nova Scotia for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society may consider counting this program for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of the Law Society of New Brunswick may consider this program for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.\nMembers of CPHR Newfoundland & Labrador may consider counting this program for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/atlantic-labour-law-conference/
LOCATION:Halifax Convention Centre\, 1650 Argyle Street\, Halifax\, Nova Scotia\, B3J 0E6\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Law & Labour Policy
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/atlantic-ll-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20231101
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20231104
DTSTAMP:20260420T160007
CREATED:20230323T025919Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240723T182026Z
UID:6793-1698796800-1699055999@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Ottawa Labour Law Conference
DESCRIPTION:Conference Co-Chairs\n\n \nAnnie McKendy\nArbitrator\, Mediator\, and Investigator \n\n\n \nCaroline Richard\nEmployer Counsel\nBird Richard \n\n\n \nTroy Winters\nSenior Health and Safety Officer\nCanadian Union of Public Employees \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nChristopher Edwards\nEmployer Counsel\nSoloway Wright \n\n\n \nKelly O’Ferrall\nEmployer Counsel\nOsler\, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP \n\n\n \nTia Hazra \nEmployment Relations Officer\nProfessional Institute of the Public Service of Canada \n\n\n \nAlison Longmore\nUnion Counsel\nJewitt McLuckie & Associates LLP \n\n\nWednesday\, November 1\, 20239:00 am – 9:10 am ET – Introductory remarks by Co-Chairs \nPanel 1: Notable and Newsworthy: Major caselaw and legislative developments - 9:10 am – 10:25 am ET\nNotable and Newsworthy: Major caselaw and legislative developments\n\n\n \nChristopher Rootham\nBoard Member\nFederal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) \n\n\n \nCraig Stehr\nEmployer Counsel\nGowling WLG \n\n\n \nAmy Kishek\nLegal Counsel\nCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) \n\n\nIn this session\, experts will examine recent significant developments in labour law. Panelists will address the latest cases on government intervention in collective bargaining\, lessons to be learned from emerging jurisprudence on COVID-19 policies\, and perennial issues such as privacy\, discipline\, and discrimination\, harassment\, and accommodation. The panel will also examine legislative updates including Canada’s ratification of the ILO Violence and Harassment Convention\, 2019\, and legislation dealing with forced labour. Final selection of topics will take place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most newsworthy developments. \nBreak: 10:25 am – 10:40 am ET \nPanel 2: Disabilities That Elude Diagnosis: Accommodating employees with undiagnosed or poorly understood conditions - 10:40 am – 11:50 am ET \nDisabilities That Elude Diagnosis: Accommodating employees with undiagnosed or poorly understood conditions\n\n\n \nWendy Laframboise\nNurse Practitioner\nCoordinator\, Post-Covid Rehab\nThe Ottawa Hospital Rehabilitation Centre \n\n\n \nMeg Steele\nActing Director\, Human Resources Services\nFinance and Corporate Services Department \n\n\n \nDina Mashayekhi\nUnion Counsel\nJewitt McLuckie \n\n\nChallenges often arise in accommodating employees with conditions that cannot be identified by a clear diagnostic test or that are not yet well-understood within the medical community. In this session\, experts will address these challenges\, answering 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 that list?\nIs a definitive diagnosis\, or “objective evidence\,” necessary to establish disability? How should employers and unions respond where there is a lack of available medical practitioners with the requisite knowledge or experience to assess and attest to the condition?\nHow can employers and unions effectively formulate requests for medical information where an employee’s condition cannot be confirmed using a clinician’s diagnostic test?\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 feigning illness? May an employer discipline or dismiss an employee who is frequently absent\, underperforming\, or exhibiting atypical workplace behaviours but who asserts that it is due to an as-yet undiagnosed disability?\nHow do the stereotypes and stigmas associated with these medical conditions contribute to the challenge of providing accommodation?\n\nWhat types of accommodations may be of assistance to an employee suffering from persistent or chronic symptoms that may impact their ability to work? For example: What measures may assist an individual with long COVID?Lunch: 11:50 am – 1:00 pm ET \nKeynote - ReconciliACTION: Addressing TRC recommendations in legislation - 1:00 pm – 1:25 pm ET\nReconciliACTION: Addressing TRC recommendations in legislation\n\n\n \nStan Kutcher\nSenator\nSenate of Canada \n\n\nThe Criminal Code of Canada continues to provide legal protection for parents who use corporal punishment for purposes of correction against their children. Yet extensive research evidence shows that such violence has no positive effect but does result in short and long term harm. Bill S-251 seeks to remove section 43 of the Code to offer children the same protection from assault as all others living in Canada have. Senator Kutcher\, a child and adolescent psychiatrist\, will address this issue\, which has also been flagged by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC #6). Consideration of the responsibilities of parents and the rights of children in the context of today’s mental health realities will help frame this presentation. \nPanel 3: Breaking Barriers: Best practices in promoting equity\, diversity\, and inclusion in the workplace - 1:25 pm – 2:35 pm ET\nBreaking Barriers: Best practices in promoting equity\, diversity\, and inclusion in the workplace\n\n\n \nRichard Gaboton\nEDI Specialist\nThe Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) \n\n\n \nJena Montgomery\nCounsel\nTreasury Board Secretariat Legal Services\nDepartment of Justice \n\n\n \nKami Ramcharan\nPresident\nKVR Management Support \nMember\nEmployment Equity Act Review Task Force \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\, experts will address the ongoing work of the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force and examine topics such as improving equity in promotion and retention\, the best means of effectively measuring equity efforts\, and the promise and peril of data in improving workplace equity. \nBreak: 2:35 pm – 2:50 pm ET \nPanel 4: Off-the-Clock Conduct: Reconciling employee free speech and employer reputational concerns - 2:50 pm – 3:55 pm ET\nOff-the-Clock Conduct: Reconciling employee free speech and employer reputational concerns\n\n\n \nDavid Jewitt\nArbitrator/Mediator\nJewitt Arbitration \n\n\n \nKyle Van Schie \nEmployer Counsel\nSoloway Wright \n\n\n \nChristine Johnson\nUnion Counsel\nChamp and Associates \n\n\nAn employee’s off-duty conduct can affect the reputation of a workplace\, impact the well-being of colleagues\, and lead to discipline or termination. In this session\, experts will examine employer and union rights and duties in promoting appropriate employee behaviour\, both within and beyond the workplace. Panelists will address questions including: \n\nCan employers limit employees’ off-duty conduct? Is the nature of the business relevant? When does an employee’s right to express personal opinions while off-duty become a legitimate concern for the employer?\nAre there any limits on an employer’s ability to monitor the physical or online activities of off-duty employees?\nWhat constitutes political speech or activity? Can an employer limit political speech or activity in the workplace? What about outside of the workplace?\nCan employers or unions offer or require training regarding what constitutes appropriate off-duty conduct?\nIn what circumstances have employees been disciplined or had their employment terminated for their off-duty conduct?\nWhat language should be incorporated into workplace policies and collective agreements to address off-duty conduct?\nWhat key terms should be included in employee social media policies?\nWhat are best practices for employers and unions seeking to balance employees’ freedom of expression and the need to ensure a workplace free of discrimination and harassment?\n\nDay 1 Closing Remarks: 3:55 pm – 4:00 pm ET \nNetworking reception: 4:00 pm – 5:00 pm ET \nThursday\, November 2\, 2023Introductory remarks by Co-chairs: 9:00 am – 9:10 am ET \nPanel 5: Asset or Adversary? Examining the implications of artificial intelligence for the world of work - 9:10 am – 10:25 am ET\nAsset or Adversary? Examining the implications of artificial intelligence for the world of work\n\n\n \nDr. Valerio De Stefano\nCanada Research Chair in Innovation Law and Society\, Osgoode Hall Law School\nYork University \n\n\n \nAndrew Vey\nEmployer Counsel\nWillets Vey \n\n\n \nLaura Ross\nBilingual Senior Officer\nLegal Branch CUPE \n\n\nWhen ChatGPT was launched less than a year ago\, the promises and dangers of advanced artificial intelligence moved from the annals of science fiction to the front page of newspapers. While fears about automation killing jobs are not unique to this latest technological revolution\, the concerns this time have shifted from work involving repetitive tasks and physical effort to white collar\, creative\, and intellectual work. The Writers’ Guild and SAG AFTRA strikes bear witness to the encroachment of machines into types of work that had long been thought to require uniquely human faculties. In this session a panel of experts will explore AI’s impact on the world of work and discuss the implications for labour relations: \n\nHow\, if at all\, are ChatGPT and similar AI applications different from previous AI programs? Do they “think”? Are they conscious? Are they creative?\nAre concerns about AI’s impact on work overblown? Is this technological advancement really different from previous technological revolutions that fomented their own concerns about mass unemployment and the dehumanization of work?\nWhat jobs and sectors will be most affected by AI? How should unions and employers use collective bargaining to address the potential impact of AI on those jobs and sectors?\nShould both employers and unions lobby government for increased regulation of AI and its effects on work and workers? If so\, what should they be asking for? Is there any common ground?\nWill human resources be taken over by “algorithmic management\,” which is 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 should employers and unions address the potential use of algorithmic management in collective agreements? Do all collective agreements need to address this issue?\nCould AI take over some labour relations tasks like writing policies\, interpreting contract language\, drafting grievances\, researching law\, formulating arguments based on precedent\, or even deciding the outcome of grievances?\n\nBreak: 10:25 am – 10:40 am ET \nPanel 6: Fostering Diversity: Removing barriers to recruitment\, retention\, and promotion of neurodivergent employees - 10:40 am – 11:55 am ET\nFostering Diversity: Removing barriers to recruitment\, retention\, and promotion of neurodivergent employees\n\n\n \nVirginie Cobigo\nExecutive Director\, Open Collaboration for Cognitive Accessibility \nAssociate professor\nFaculty of Social Sciences\, School of Psychology\nUniversity of Ottawa \n\n\n \nDavid Patacairk\nLegal Counsel\nCity of Ottawa \n\n\n \nMorgan Rowe\nUnion Counsel\nRaven\, Cameron\, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP \n\n\nNeurodivergent Canadians\, i.e. those who have lifelong neurological or developmental conditions such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)\, continue to face significant employment barriers despite growing recognition of the benefits of neurodiversity in the workplace. For example\, only about a third of working-age Autistic Canadians are employed\, and those who are employed are substantially more likely to be underemployed than the general population. In this session\, experts will explore why these barriers persist and offer guidance on providing accommodation to neurodivergent employees and jobseekers. \n\nWhy is the term “neurodivergent” used to describe people with learning disabilities\, ADHD\, and ASD? What do these conditions have in common? How are they different?\nHow do common stereotypes affect the inclusion and accommodation of neurodivergent employees in the workplace? What can be done to combat these stereotypes?\nShould workplace neurodiversity be actively promoted in the same way as other forms of organizational diversity? If so\, should jobseekers be required to provide medical documentation during the hiring process or should self-identification be accepted?\nWhat can employers and unions do to eliminate or reduce the barriers faced by neurodivergent jobseekers?\nWhy do many neurodivergent employees find it difficult to retain employment or advance at work?\nWhat accommodations are likely to help neurodivergent employees not only stay at work but thrive?\nWhat type of medical information can employers require from neurodivergent employees seeking accommodation? Should a detailed neuropsychological evaluation report be required?\nHow often\, if ever\, should updated medical information be requested from a neurodivergent employee\, who\, by definition\, has a lifelong condition?\nWhat accommodation should unions provide to neurodivergent members accessing union services and using union processes?\n\nLunch: 11:55 am – 1:00 pm ET \nPanel 7: Navigating the New World of Work: Addressing privacy\, accommodation\, conflict\, and collaboration in hybrid and remote work arrangements - 1:00 pm – 2:15 pm ET\nNavigating the New World of Work: Addressing privacy\, accommodation\, conflict\, and collaboration in hybrid and remote work arrangements\n\n\n \nIan Mackenzie\nArbitrator/Mediator \n\n\n \nHeather Cameron\nEmployer Counsel\nNorton Rose Fulbright \n\n\n \nNatasha Udell\nIn-House Legal Counsel\nOntario Provincial Police Association \n\n\nAs some employers renew calls to return to in-person work\, parties have remained deeply divided over the promise and drawbacks that work-from-home arrangements pose for productivity and teamwork. In this session\, panelists will provide expert guidance on navigating these concerns\, addressing questions including: \n\nAre employers entitled to monitor the productivity of employees working from home through surveillance measures such as monitoring software? What lessons can be learned from how arbitrators have balanced employers’ interest in ensuring productivity with employees’ right to privacy in other contexts?\nWhen will misuse of working time rise to the level of “time theft”? How should employers address employees who use working time for other purposes while at home — such as napping\, doing laundry\, or looking after family members?\nWhat are emerging best practices for ensuring that a remote or hybrid working arrangement does not negatively impact creativity and collaboration? With many employees reporting increased loneliness arising from their work-from-home arrangements\, what proactive steps can be taken to foster well-being and connection among remote team members?\nIn what ways has shifting to a remote or hybrid work arrangement ameliorated or exacerbated workplace conflict\, harassment\, and discrimination? How can parties ensure that inappropriate workplace behaviours do not simply shift to forums that may be harder to monitor (e.g. online chats)?\nWhen will a decision to require employees to return to in-person work constitute an improper exercise of management rights? Is there a business case to be made for allowing remote or hybrid work\, even where an employer may otherwise legitimately require employees to return?\nWhen must an employee’s request for accommodation through a remote working arrangement be granted?\nDo employees returning to in-person work have a right to return to their former office space? How can workplace parties ensure “co-working” arrangements (such as desk “hoteling” or “hot-desking”) do not lead to increased conflict or health and safety hazards?\n\nBreak: 2:15 pm – 2:30 pm ET \nPanel 8: Investigating Investigations: An examination of current best practices and recent developments - 2:30 pm – 3:45 pm ET\nInvestigating Investigations: An examination of current best practices and recent developments\n\n\n \nKatherine Cotton\nLawyer and Workplace Investigator \n\n\n \nChristopher Edwards\nEmployer Counsel\nSoloway Wright \n\n\n \nJennifer Duff\nUnion Counsel\nShields Hunt Duff Strachan \n\n\nWorkplace investigations have evolved in recent years\, including an increased use of remote interviews and a focus on the impact of biases on the investigation process. In this session\, experts will discuss important developments in this area\, in addition to practices and policies that safeguard fair and effective investigations. The following questions will be discussed: \n\nWhat lessons can be learned from recent cases addressing the appropriate scope of an investigation\, considering the need to preserve a fair\, adequate\, and effective investigation process?\nWhat strategies can workplace parties implement to address the challenges of conducting investigations in a remote work environment? Is there any proven or perceived benefit to conducting workplace investigations in-person?\nHow can workplace investigators ensure that they are mindful of unconscious and implicit biases during the investigation process? What impact do these biases have on workplace investigations?\nWhat are best practices when it comes to incorporating a trauma-informed approach to conducting witness interviews during an investigation?\nHow can investigators effectively identify and address pervasive systemic discrimination in the workplace through the fact-finding and report-writing process? How can employers and unions support investigators in this endeavor?\nWhat measures should an employer take when an allegation is not substantiated? What role does the union have in restoring a safe and healthy workplace for all parties involved in these circumstances?\n\nDay 2 Closing Remarks: 3:45 pm – 3:55 pm ET \nFriday\, November 3\, 2023Workshop*Workshop sold separately from stand-alone conference. \nBreakfast: 8:00 am – 9:00 am ET \nMedical Information in Accommodation and Adjudication: Practical guidance for employers and unions - 9:00 am – 4:00 pm\n\n\n \nGoretti Fukamusenge\nBoard MemberFederal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board \n\n\n \nDr. Darcy A Santor\nPsychologistProfessorFaculty of Social SciencesUniversity of Ottawa \n\n\n \nSophie Arsenault\nEmployer CounselFasken \n\n\n \nNicole Butt\nManager of Litigation and Legal CounselOntario Nurses Association \n\n\n \nJudith Parisien\nEmployer Counsel\nFasken\n\n\nWorkplace parties may have a legitimate need to access and assess employee medical information throughout grievance and arbitration processes\, but it is crucial that they do so in a reasonable and appropriate manner. In this interactive workshop\, attendees will learn the legal framework governing the appropriate collection\, use\, and storage of employee health information; strategies for requesting\, obtaining\, and assessing information from healthcare professionals; and key principles relating to the use of medical information at arbitration. Guided by expert panelists\, attendees will leave ready to: \n\nAssess the reasonableness of requests for employees’ personal health information;\nEvaluate the adequacy of information provided;\nRespond appropriately to vague or deficient information;\nApproach employees/union members about needed information with sensitivity;\nDetermine what type of information should be obtained from different health care professionals and assess when specialist reports or independent medical examinations are necessary;\nRecognize when a health care professional is acting as an advocate or assuming an inappropriate role;\nSafeguard personal health information in compliance with legislation and in accordance with best practices; and\nUse medical evidence effectively in the grievance and arbitration process.\n\nConference CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved for 9.75 Continuing Professional Development hours under Section A3 of the Recertification Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association.\n\n\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting this program for 9.75 substantive hours.\n\n\nWorkshop CPD\n\n\nThe Ottawa Labour Law Post-Conference Workshops have been approved for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours under Section A3 of the Recertification Log of the Human Resource Professionals Association\, each.\n\n\nMembers of the Law Society of Ontario may consider counting The Ottawa Labour Law Post-Conference Workshops for 5.5 substantive hours\, each.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/ottawa-labour-law-conference/
LOCATION:Rogers Centre Ottawa\, 55 Colonel By Drive\, Ottawa\, Ontario\, K1N 9J2\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Law & Labour Policy
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/header/ottawa-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230516T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230518T154500
DTSTAMP:20260420T160007
CREATED:20230322T031803Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240723T182055Z
UID:6616-1684224000-1684424700@lancasterhouse.com
SUMMARY:Atlantic Canada Labour Law Conference
DESCRIPTION:Conference Co-Chairs\n\n \nJudith Begley\nLawyer\, Workplace Investigator\, and Mediator\nBegley Law \n\n\n \nAndrew Nielsen\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nTara Erskine\nEmployer Counsel\nMathews\, Dinsdale & Clark LLP \n\n\nConference Advisory Committee\n\n \nChris Peddigrew\nArbitrator/Mediator and Vice-Chairperson\,\nNewfoundland and Labrador Labour Relations Board \n\n\n \nTracey Pinder\nAtlantic Regional Director\nCUPE \n\n\n \nMatt Hiltz\nExecutive Director and Chief Negotiatior\nNew Brunswick Nurses Union \n\n\n \nJessica Upshaw\nSolicitor\nNova Scotia Power \n\n\n \nKaren Milligan\nHR Manager\nHealth PEI \n\n\nTuesday\, May 16\, 2023Breakfast and Registration – 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. AT\nIntroductory remarks by Co-Chairs – 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. AT \nWorkshop - Medical Information in Accommodation and Adjudication: Practical guidance for employers and unions\nMedical Information in Accommodation and Adjudication: Practical guidance for employers and unions\n\n\n \nJasmine Walsh\nChair\nNova Scotia Labour Board \n\n\n \nKaren Joudrey\nInstructor and Academic Coordinator Disability Management Certificate Program and the Department of\nOccupational Therapy Dalhousie University\n\n\n \nDawn Learning\nAtlantic Region Human Rights Representative\nCUPE \n\n\n \nAnnie Gray\nEmployer Counsel\nStewart McKelvey \n\n\nIt is generally accepted that employers must request no more employee personal health information than is necessary for legitimate purposes such as administering sick leave or disability benefits\, providing accommodation under human rights legislation\, or ensuring workplace health and safety and/or an employee’s fitness to work. However\, the application of this principle to specific cases generates endless controversy because employers\, unions\, employees\, and healthcare providers often each have their own ideas of what is “reasonable.” This session is designed to provide a common framework that will enable workplace parties to balance employees’ privacy rights with employers’ needs for employee personal health information. \nGuided by experienced counsel and a medical expert\, participants will learn the legal framework governing the collection\, use\, and storage of employee personal health information\, practical strategies for obtaining and reviewing information from health care professionals\, and key principles regarding using medical information at arbitration. Participants will leave ready to: \n\nassess the reasonableness of requests for employees’ personal health information;\nevaluate the adequacy of information provided and respond appropriately to vague or deficient information;\napproach employees/union members about needed information with sensitivity;\nwrite requests that prompt timely\, useful responses from health care providers and medical experts;\nevaluate the appropriateness and utility of standardized medical information forms;\ndetermine what type of information should be obtained from different health care professionals (e.g. general practitioners\, medical specialists\, psychologists\, occupational therapists) and assess when specialist reports or independent medical examinations are necessary;\nrecognize when a health care professional is acting as an advocate or assuming an inappropriate role;\nsafeguard personal health information in compliance with legislation and in accordance with best practices; and;\nuse medical evidence effectively in the grievance and arbitration process\n\nWednesday\, May 17\, 2023Breakfast and Registration – 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. AT\nIntroductory remarks by Co-Chairs – 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. AT \nPanel 1 - The Latest in Labour: Experts address key cases and legislative developments 9:05 a.m. – 10:20 a.m. AT\nThe Latest in Labour: Experts address key cases and legislative developments\n\n\n \nDavid Conway\nAdjudicator\, Arbitrator\, Mediator and\nIndependent Counsel \n\n\n \nSandra Mullen\nPresident Nova Scotia Government & General\nEmployees Union \n\n\n \nJames LeMesurier\nEmployer Counsel\nStewart McKelvey \n\n\nIn this panel\, seasoned experts will canvass significant legal developments of the past year\, discussing key cases\, ongoing litigation\, and legislative reforms. Topics to be addressed include issues of jurisdiction\, workplace substance use policies\, collective agreement issues\, proof of vaccination and vaccine mandate issues\, and human rights cases. Legislative updates from across the Atlantic provinces will also be discussed\, including emergency leave\, pay transparency\, and union strike rules. Final selection of topics takes place in the weeks leading up to the conference\, ensuring coverage of the latest and most important developments. \nKeynote - The Other Wet Floor: Psychological Occupational Risk in Helping Professions 10:20 a.m. - 10:40 a.m. AT\nThe Other Wet Floor: Psychological Occupational Risk in Helping Professions\n\n\n \nJ.D. Gilmour\nManager of Employee Abilities and Return to Work\nHealth PEI \n\n\nBreak 10:40 a.m. – 10:55 a.m. AT \nPanel 2 -Recovering the Balance: Practical guidance on flexible work\, the right to disconnect\, and avoiding burnout 10:55 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. AT\nRecovering the Balance: Practical guidance on flexible work\, the right to disconnect\, and avoiding burnout\n\n\n \nFrank Demont\, K.C.\nArbitrator\nResolve Arbitration & Mediation Services \n\n\n \nMary Fougere\nNational Staff Representative\nCUPE \n\n\n \nEmily McDonald\nLawyer and Consultant\nHR Atlantic \n\n\nEmployers must consider their obligation to prevent mental health harms\, including burnout\, stress\, and the consequences of working remotely. Questions to be discussed include: \n\nHow have adjudicators and courts in recent cases defined an employer’s responsibilities and an employee’s rights when it comes to workplace stress\, burnout\, and other contributors to mental health harms?\nHow can employers and unions identify and prevent organizational factors that cause mental health harms? What steps can be taken by employers\, unions\, and workers to address these factors?\nHow can employers\, unions\, and workers actively reduce the mental health harms that may be associated with remote work?\nHow should the “right to disconnect” be defined in corporate policies where such policies are required by legislation? How has it worked in jurisdictions where this right has been legislated? Is it a necessary tool for the well-being of employees?\nDoes the right to disconnect assist in preventing mental health harms to employees who are not working traditional 9-to-5 shift schedules?\nHas remote work blurred the line between overwork and overtime? How can employers and unions ensure that there is a workable distinction?\nIn protecting and promoting workers’ mental health\, including efforts to prevent and reduce stress and burnout in the workplace\, what role is there for the National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace?\n\nLunch 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. \nPanel 3 - Investigations under a Microscope: An examination of current best practices and recent developments 1:00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m. AT\nInvestigations under a Microscope: An examination of current best practices and recent developments\n\n\n \nKrista Smith\nWorkplace Investigator Root and Branch \n\n\n \nRyan McCarville\nLawyer\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nRay Mitchell\nLegal Counsel\nInternational Union of Painters and Allied Trades\nDistrict Council 39 \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 this area\, in addition to practices and policies that safeguard fair and effective investigations: \n\nConsidering the need to preserve a fair\, adequate\, and effective investigation process\, what lessons can be drawn from recent cases about the proper scope of an employer’s investigation?\nWhat are the essential qualities or qualifications of a competent investigator? When should an external investigator be retained?\nHow do unconscious and implicit biases impact human rights investigations in the workplace? What can be done to avoid them?\nHow can 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 an investigation?\nWhat is the role of the union in an investigation? What are the limitations of union involvement?\nWhat strategies can workplace parties implement to 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?\nWhat are the crucial components of an anti-harassment policy? How can an organization adequately monitor its policies for effectiveness? What measures should an employer take when an allegation is not substantiated?\n\nBreak 2:15 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. \nPanel 4 - Disabilities That Elude Diagnosis: Accommodating employees with Long COVID\, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome\, and other poorly understood conditions 2:30 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. AT\nDisabilities That Elude Diagnosis: Accommodating employees with Long COVID\, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome\, and other poorly understood conditions\n\n\n \nDr. Alexis Goth\nPhysician\nIntegrated Chronic Care Service (ICCS) \n\n\n \nJillian Houlihan\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nJames Green\nEmployer Counsel\nCox and Palmer \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 often 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?\nIs a definitive diagnosis\, or “objective evidence\,” necessary to establish an invisible disability? How should employers and unions respond where there is a lack of available medical practitioners with the requisite knowledge or experience to assess and attest to the condition?\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?\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?\nMay an employer discipline or dismiss an employee who is frequently absent\, underperforming\, or exhibiting atypical workplace behaviours but who asserts that it is due to an as-yet undiagnosed disability? Does the fact that a disability is difficult to diagnose impact the assessment of whether the employer has accommodated the employee up to the point of undue hardship?\nHow do the stereotypes and stigmas associated with these medical conditions contribute to the challenge of providing accommodation?\nWhere an employee has a difficult-to-diagnose disability that manifests episodically\, is an employer legally permitted to request medical information from the employee on a periodic or ongoing basis?\nWhat types of accommodations may be of assistance to an employee suffering from persistent or chronic symptoms that may impact their ability to work? For example: What will help individuals coping with Long COVID? How can employers and unions cooperate to support such employees in the workplace?\n\nNetworking Reception 3:45 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. AT \nThursday\, May 18\, 2023Breakfast and Registration – 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. AT\nIntroductory remarks by Co-Chairs – 9:00 a.m. – 9:10 a.m. AT \nPanel 5 - Digital Dignity: Protecting privacy in an era of workplace surveillance 9:05 a.m. – 10:20 a.m. AT\nDigital Dignity: Protecting privacy in an era of workplace surveillance\n\n\n \nDavid Fraser\nPrivacy Lawyer and Partner\nMcInnes Cooper \n\n\n \nDaniel Leger\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nErin Delaney\nSolicitor\nDepartment of Justice and Public SafetyGovernment of Newfoundland and Labrador\n\n\nHow can employers and unions ensure that workplace surveillance is reasonable and does not encroach on employees’ rights? In this panel\, experts will discuss best practices in balancing employee privacy against the use of monitoring technologies in the workplace. Specifically\, panelists will address: \n\nWhat key items should employers and unions address in policies and collective agreement provisions governing privacy and surveillance?\nWhat workplace surveillance is permitted under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?\nDo proposed changes in the federal Digital Charter Implementation Act\, 2022 (Bill C-27) adequately address the criticism that existing privacy legislation does not comprehensively respond to the availability of mass data collection on employees?\nHow have arbitral attitudes towards workplace privacy evolved in response to modern surveillance technologies?\nWhat concerns do keystroke mapping technologies and other methods of surveillance pose for employees’ privacy and human rights?\nWhat is the proper balance between a remote employee’s right to privacy in their home and an employer’s legitimate supervisory interests?\nCan employees object to off-duty surveillance? If so\, how should off-duty surveillance be addressed in policies and collective agreements?\nWhat continuing practices should employers and unions apply to ensure that employee information is kept confidential and secure?\n\nBreak 10:20 a.m. – 10:35 a.m. AT \nPanel 6 - Off-Duty\, Off-Base? Balancing freedom of expression and the right to a respectful workplace 10:35 a.m. - 11:50 a.m. AT\nOff-Duty\, Off-Base? Balancing freedom of expression and the right to a respectful workplace\n\n\n \nLynne Poirier\nArbitrator\, Mediator and Vice-chair Canada\nIndustrial Relations Board and Nova Scotia Labour Board\n\n\n \nKevin Kindred\nSolicitor\, the Department of Justice\nGovernment of Nova Scotia \n\n\n \nLeah Kutcher\nIn-House Counsel\nNova Scotia Teachers Union \n\n\nWhere should the line be drawn between safeguarding employee freedom of expression and ensuring a workplace free from harassment and inappropriate or offensive communications? Is it relevant if an employee’s off-duty conduct is offensive to co-workers? In this panel\, experts will explore employer and union responsibilities in ensuring appropriate employee conduct\, both inside and outside the workplace. Specifically\, panelists will address: \n\nWhat key provisions should be included in workplace policies and collective agreements to address inappropriate conduct? Can these provisions encompass off-duty conduct?\nAre employers permitted to limit how employees represent themselves while off-duty? Is the nature of the business relevant?\nCan employers or unions offer or require training regarding off-duty conduct?\nCan employers ban workplace discussions on controversial or political topics in the workplace? If so\, how would a topic be assessed as “political” or “controversial”?\nWhat are the duties of unions when representing members facing consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in the workplace? Is the union’s duty any different if the member is being disciplined for expressions made outside the workplace?\nDoes an employee have any duty to report a controversial off-duty statement by another employee?\nWhat are best practices for employers and unions to ensure that an employee’s Charter or Human Rights Act rights are supported while maintaining a workplace free from discrimination and harassment?\n\nLunch 11:50 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. \nPanel 7 - Disciplinary Dilemmas: When is coaching discipline? When is union representation required? When is there a right to remain silent? 1:00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m. AT\nDisciplinary Dilemmas: When is coaching discipline? When is union representation required? When is there a right to remain silent?\n\n\n \nTrisha Perry\nMediator/Vice-Chair\nNew Brunswick Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal \n\n\n \nJames Farrell\nSolicitor and Staff Representative\nFFAW-Unifor \n\n\n \nKyle MacIsaac\nEmployer Counsel\nMatthews Dinsdale \n\n\nRights and responsibilities differ when an employer is engaging in job “coaching” or performance management as opposed to imposing formal discipline. In this session\, expert speakers will examine key issues pertaining to disciplinary processes\, addressing questions such as: \n\nHow can parties clearly differentiate job coaching and training\, performance management\, and discipline? When and to what extent can management take action to improve worker performance without this amounting to a formal warning or other disciplinary act?\nWhat circumstances trigger an employee’s right to union representation? How have arbitrators distinguished meetings or discussions which are merely “investigatory” or otherwise non-disciplinary from those which are disciplinary and attract procedural protections? Where an employee does have a right to union representation\, must an employer inform the employee of that right?\nDo employees have a qualified right to remain silent in investigative meetings where they reasonably believe a disclosure may expose them to discipline? May employees be disciplined solely due to their decision to remain silent? When employees are or may be subject to criminal charges in relation to the factual circumstances underpinning an investigatory or disciplinary meeting\, may those employees seek to protect themselves against self-incrimination?\nhat ought an employer do to ensure fairness toward an employee in the course of a disciplinary meeting or process? Where an employer fails to follow procedural requirements in relation to a disciplinary meeting\, or unnecessarily delays the disciplinary process\, will this impact an arbitrator’s willingness to uphold a disciplinary measure?\nWhere a union representative participates in a disciplinary meeting\, what is the scope of that representative’s role?\nHow may an employee’s conduct during a disciplinary meeting impact an arbitrator’s assessment as to whether to uphold the discipline imposed?\n\nBreak 2:15 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. \nPanel 8 - Is Virtual the New Reality? Debating the pros and cons of virtual labour relations 2:30 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. AT\nIs Virtual the New Reality? Debating the pros and cons of virtual labour relations\n\n\n \nNoella Martin\nEmployer Counsel\nWickwire Holm \n\n\n \nBrenda Comeau\nUnion Counsel\nPink Larkin \n\n\n \nScott Sterns\nArbitrator and Mediator \n\n\n\nAre virtual hearings a comparable substitute for in-person hearings? What is lost or gained when conducting hearings virtually?\n\na. Do virtual proceedings allow for more inclusivity and access to justice? If so\, how?\nb. Do virtual proceedings pose any concerns regarding credibility?\nc. Can demeanor and body language be assessed virtually?\nd. Have virtual proceedings reduced costs and delays?\n\n\nHow have parties adapted to bargaining virtually?\nWhat steps should labour relations professionals take to ensure privacy and confidentiality is respected during virtual proceedings?\nDo Canadian labour relations professionals have a “duty of technological competence” similar to duties imposed on American attorneys?\nAre additional technological safeguards necessary for virtual discussions regarding personal health information or other confidential matters?\nWhat steps should unions take to ensure that there is effective representation and cohesion among members who primarily communicate remotely?\nHow should virtual labour relations practices be addressed in workplace policies or collective agreements?\n\nConference ends – 3:45 p.m. \nConference CPD\n\n\nThis program has been approved by CPHR Nova Scotia for 5.5 Continuing Professional Development hours.
URL:https://lancasterhouse.com/event/atlantic-canada-labour-law-conference/
LOCATION:Hotel Halifax\, 1990 Barrington Street\, Scotia Square\, Halifax\, Nova Scotia\, B3J 1P2\, Canada
CATEGORIES:Conference,Labour Law & Labour Policy
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lancasterhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/portrait/halifax-header.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR