Difference between revisions of "BC Human Rights Code (6:III)"

The test for whether sexual harassment occurred is an objective standard. It must be shown that the alleged discriminatory conduct is “reasonably perceived to create a negative psychological and emotional environment for work.”  Please refer to Mottu v MacLeod, 2004 BCHRT 76 at para 41 where the Tribunal found that dress code requirements based on sex could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. The test must also take into account the customary boundaries of social interaction in the circumstances. There may not be an action if the complaint arises due to the claimant’s innate sensitivity or defensiveness. Factors that are examined to determine the limits of reasonableness in a particular context include the nature of the conduct, the workplace environment, the type of prior personal interaction, and whether a prior objection or complaint was made. It is no defence to harassment, however, to show that harassing behaviour was traditionally tolerated in a workplace.

Age can refer to an individual’s legal age, membership in a specific age-category, or a generalized characterization of a specific age. In BC, age is a protected ground of discrimination in the areas of employment; employment advertising; membership in a trade union, employer’s organization, or occupational association; public services; tenancy and publications. Please refer to ''Miu v Vanart Aluminum and Tam'', 2006 BCHRT 219 at para 18.  

In each of these areas, age protection is restricted to those 19 years of age and over. However, those under 19 years are still able to bring complaints to the BCHRT based on grounds other than age.  

BC’s HRC protects individuals convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence, or a perceived conviction (i.e. arrest or stayed charges) as long as the offence is unrelated to the employment or the intended employment of the individual. Please refer to Purewall v ICBC, 2011 BCHRT 43 at para 21, Clement v Jackson and Abdulla, 2006 BCHRT 411 at para 14 and Korthe v Hillstrom Oil Company Ltd (1997), (BCHRT) at para 23-28. In an effort to establish whether or not a conviction may affect an employment decision, courts require an assessment of the relationship between the conviction and the job description. As such, employers must take into account the circumstances of the conviction in order to determine whether or not the charge relates to the employment. In Woodward Stores (British Columbia) v McCartney (1983) 43 BCLR 314 at para 7-9, Justice MacDonald laid out a list of criteria to be considered in making this determination. These criteria are as follows:  

In BC, the HRC extends protection on the basis of a criminal or summary conviction only in the area of employment.  

In a 1994 amendment to the ''Residential Tenancy Act'', source of income was established as a protected ground of discrimination with regards  to rental housing. This amendment safeguards the tenancy rights of individuals on social assistance or disability pensions, who might  otherwise be denied safe housing. Enforced by the BCHRT, source of income is a protected ground only in the area of tenancy. Please refer to ''Tanner and Vlake'', 2003 BCHRT 36 at para 22-26 for further discussion.