First published on Wednesday, June 11, 2025
Last updated on Wednesday, June 11, 2025
Welcome to HR Heartbeat, where we take a look at the week’s most pressing HR and employment law stories. With over a decade of experience working within the HR and employment law industry, I give my opinion on current trends impacting your business, as well as my own personal commentary on all things HR and legal.
Wanted: ‘Qualified Woman’—equity or discrimination?
Today, let's dive into a case from Ontario, where a male job applicant challenged a job posting that required the successful candidate to be a qualified woman. Claiming gender discrimination after being passed over for an interview, he brought his complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal, but they thought differently.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that the Human Rights Code has provisions for special programs dedicated to helping disadvantaged groups and agreed that the company's process for creating such an ad was thorough, and part of a wider Equity Plan with targeted initiatives to relieve hardships and promote equal opportunity.
Investigations found that the business conducted equity assessments based on census and workforce data, identified representation gaps, and applied an equity designation where justified. In this case, the role was designated for women due to their underrepresentation in similar positions.
So, there was no violation of the applicant’s rights, and the Tribunal upheld the company's plan as a lawful special program. For employers aiming to build a more inclusive workplace, I think this case is a clear reminder that equity-based hiring, when done right, is fully protected under the law.
Could squeezing past your coworker be harassment?
Over in Alberta, a sexual harassment claim tied to a cramped food prep area was dismissed by the Human Rights Commission. The employee alleged daily groping and frequent collisions, but the commission found the restaurant's small layout made unintentional physical contact unavoidable.
The employer's saving grace in this case was their proactive training and response, plus the general context of the workplace.
They also cited that whenever the employee complained, their coworkers were quick to apologize. In addition, video evidence showed that one of the incidents the worker brought up was accidental.
Something important to note is that while context can explain certain behaviour, ignoring or dismissing complaints due to tight quarters could increase your legal risk. In close settings, respect, awareness, and solid documentation is your best protection. Feel free to seek expert employment legislation advice for an added layer of compliance and peace of mind.
A costly message on unpaid wages
Ignoring wage orders isn’t just bad business, it’s against the law and the price can be steep.
A college and its director have learned this the hard way as they were fined a whopping $410,000 for failing to pay nearly $185,000 in wages owed to 14 employees.
Even after multiple orders by employment standards officers, neither the college nor the director paid up or even requested a review—a careless move that ultimately landed them in hot water.
The result was a guilty verdict in court, a steep fine, plus a 25% victim fine surcharge. And this is outside of the back wages they still owe.
A few lessons from this case employers can learn:
Wage violations are serious offences under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act.
As a business owner, you can be held personally responsible
Ignoring orders won’t make them go away, it just leads to more severe consequences.
And that’s a wrap from me. Tune in next time for my take on the latest headlines and employment law stories, helping keep your business ahead!
