Canada: Employment Essentials: Top 5 Lessons From May 2019

Gowling WLG's employment, labour & equalities experts bring you the latest top five employment law developments that may affect your business.

Here are our five significant employment law developments you should be aware of this month - what they are and how they might impact your business.

To listen to the podcast click here

1. Employers are not required to match enhanced maternity pay for fathers taking shared parental leave

Where employers offer enhanced contractual maternity pay to mothers, can they only offer statutory shared parental leave (ShPL) pay? Does a failure to match contractual enhanced maternity pay for fathers taking ShPL amount to direct or indirect sex discrimination?

The Court of Appeal in the combined cases of Ali v Capita Customer Management Ltd and Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police v Hextall has emphatically held that employers who pay enhanced contractual maternity pay but only statutory ShPL pay do NOT directly or indirectly discriminate against men and are not in breach of equality of terms (equal pay) legislation.

What does this mean for employers

This decision will come as a relief to the many employers who, on the introduction of ShPL regime, chose to maintain their enhanced maternity pay policies but only offer ShPL at statutory pay.

It is important to note that Mr Ali's case concerned an employer's policy that only provided enhanced contractual maternity pay for the first 14 weeks and so fell squarely within the minimum leave and pay period set out in the Pregnant Workers Directive for the health and wellbeing of the birth mother. So is it still arguable in such a case that there comes a point in time when maternity leave and pay is no longer designed to protect a woman's biological condition following pregnancy and childbirth and instead, its purpose becomes only childcare?

At the centre of the judgement is the Court of Appeal's conclusion that birth mothers on maternity leave are in materially different circumstances to men (or women) on ShPL, and that this distinction does not simply expire at the end of the two week compulsory maternity leave period. The Court of Appeal's judgment arguably greatly restricts the suggestion (as mooted by the EAT in Ali) that at some point during the 52 weeks of maternity leave (possibly after 26 weeks), the leave somehow loses its health and safety rationale and becomes purely leave related to childcare.

For more detail on this significant judgment and its impact see our recent alert 'Enhancing maternity pay but not shared parental leave pay does NOT discriminate against men'.

While this decision allows employers to offer maternity and ShPL pay at different rates, it is, of course, open to employers to enhance both maternity and ShPL pay. Employers should ask themselves if offering enhanced ShPL pay will assist in attracting and retaining talent in their organisation.

If considering matching enhanced maternity pay for those on ShPL, specialist advice should be taken to make sure the wording of the policy achieves what is intended.

A further appeal to the Supreme Court has been rumoured, so one to watch for more in the future.

2. Working time: Employers must have a system for measuring daily working hours of its workers

In a case brought by a Spanish trade union, Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held that under the EU Working Time Directive (WTD), Member States are required to impose record-keeping requirements on staff to ensure the maximum 48 hour weekly working time limit is not exceeded if an opt-out is not in place and also to ensure minimum daily and weekly rest breaks are observed.

The CJEU noted the importance of the fundamental right of workers to daily and weekly rest periods and limits on maximum hours meaning employers are obliged to ensure that workers, who are the weaker party in the employment relationship, actually benefit from these rights.

In the Court's view, without a system that reliably records the working hours of the individuals within the business, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for workers to ensure their rights are complied with. To ensure the effectiveness of the rights provided, the CJEU has ruled that Member States "must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured".

The CCOO ruling concerns a challenge to Spanish law implementing the WTD, but has wide repercussions making working time record-keeping requirements more onerous across all EU Member States, including the UK and whether or not your workforce have signed 48-hour week opt-out agreements.

In order to be compliant with the WTD, employers should implement a system to objectively record all their workers' daily working hours. Employers should consider how they can collect the data needed to allow more detailed records of working time to be kept in a practical and cost effective manner. This does not mean a return to old-fashioned punch time cards. Modern working practices with the rise of agile working have led to less clearly defined and often trust-based working hours for many workers. The same digital technology which allows for more flexible working arrangements may also assist with modern time recording.

For more detail on this highly significant judgment and its impact, see our recent alert 'Working Time: what records must employers keep?'.

3. Disability discrimination: knowledge of disability

Under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, a person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is known as discrimination arising from disability. A can only be liable for discrimination arising from disability if A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that B was disabled.

Where the unfavourable treatment complained of is dismissal, does it matter that the employer did not and could not reasonably be expected to know that an employee was disabled at the time it took the initial decision to dismiss, but did know at the internal appeal against dismissal stage?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Baldeh v Churches Housing Association of Dudley and District Ltd, confirmed that when considering whether the employer had knowledge (actual or constructive) of the claimant's disability, it is relevant to consider what it knew or ought to have known right up to the point at which it decides the outcome of any appeal.

In this case, Mrs Baldeh, a support worker was dismissed at the end of her six-month probationary period, because of her performance and her rude behaviour towards her colleagues. During the appeal hearing against her dismissal, Mrs Baldeh raised for the first time that she was suffering from depression, which could have influenced her behaviour. In particular, she stated that she could respond aggressively to others while suffering from a depressive episode. She also said that such an episode could affect her short-term memory, which may have been relevant to the concerns about her performance.

As the tribunal had rejected Mrs Baldeh's claim on the incorrect basis (lack of employer knowledge of the disability), the case has been remitted to the tribunal to determine whether there was a causal link between her disability and her poor performance and behaviour towards her colleagues (the 'something' arising from her disability). See Employment Essentials: 5 Lessons from May 2018 for more on discrimination arising from disability and knowledge of consequences of disability. It is only after that question is answered can the tribunal then consider whether the decision to dismiss was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That will involve balancing the prejudice to Mrs Baldeh of losing her job, against the need to achieve the legitimate aim of maintaining standards required of individuals working with vulnerable people and maintain a workforce where staff can work amicably in a pressured environment.

Lessons for employers:

An internal appeal is an integral part of the decision to dismiss:

  • In the context of an unfair dismissal claim, it has long been the case that an employer may act unreasonably in maintaining a decision to dismiss that was justified on the facts known at the time of dismissal but which could not be sustained in light of the facts available on appeal.
  • Similarly, in the context of a discrimination arising from disability claim, when considering whether the employer had knowledge (actual or constructive) of the claimant's disability, it is relevant to consider what it knew or ought to have known right up to the point at which it decides the outcome of any appeal.

Disability discrimination: Withdrawal of overseas job posting due to health concerns NOT disability discrimination

In Owen v AMEC Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd and anor, the Court of Appeal held that refusing to allow a disabled employee to undertake an overseas posting due to medical concerns did not amount to direct disability discrimination.

Direct disability discrimination occurs where, because of a disability, an employer treats a person less favourably than another. Direct disability discrimination cannot be justified. When bringing a claim, the claimant must demonstrate that they have been treated less favourably than a real or hypothetical comparator whose circumstances are not substantially different to their own.

Mr Owen is a chemical engineer. He has double below-knee amputations and type 2 diabetes. He also suffers from hypertension, kidney disease, ischaemic heart disease and morbid obesity. He was offered a 12-month posting to Sharjah in the UAE. Prior to the posting, he was required to undergo a medical assessment with a third-party occupational health provider (standard practice for all employees undertaking overseas postings). It was assessed that Mr Owen was at a high risk of requiring medical attention while overseas due to his medical history, poor control of his diabetes and blood pressure, and the fact that he had already had a heart attack and that it may be difficult to get urgent suitable care in Sharjah.

The tribunal in this case, rejected Mr Owen's direct discrimination claim as a comparator without Mr Owen's disabilities who had also been identified as high risk in a medical assessment would not have been treated any differently. Accordingly, the medical assessment was a non-discriminatory reason for the decision not to send Mr Owen on the overseas posting.

Before the Court of Appeal, Mr Owen argued that the medical report was a proxy for his disabilities. He relied on a direct race discrimination case involving the refusal by a charity to appoint a woman of Sudanese origin to a post in war torn Sudan over concerns of impartiality and kidnap risk. In that case, these reasons were found to be a proxy for the protected characteristic of race. In other words, it was the employee's ethnic origin which was the reason for the employer's refusal, and so direct discrimination was made out, irrespective of the employer's motive. As direct discrimination, the employer could not justify its decision. This concept is sometimes referred to as 'indissociability', because the true reason and the proxy are indissociable from one another.

In Mr Owen's case, the Court of Appeal rejected the 'proxy' argument as the concept of indissociability does not readily translate to the context of disability discrimination. The concept of disability is not a binary one. It is not the case that a person's health is always entirely irrelevant to his or her ability to do a job.

The Court of Appeal agreed that there was no direct discrimination as a hypothetical comparator with a medical risk would have been treated in the exactly the same way, even if they did not have Mr Owen's particular disabilities. The Court also agreed that there was no reasonable adjustment that the employer could have made in this case. Mr Owen's multiple medical conditions made a medical assessment necessary. The employer had followed a fair and reasonable procedure and acted on independent medical advice as to the risks to Mr Owen if deployed to the UAE.

Lessons for employers:

This decision is reassuring for employers who require workers to undergo occupational health reviews prior to sending them on secondments or work placements. Nevertheless, decisions based upon medical advice must always be carefully considered and employers should still examine any medical advice relied upon to explore whether any identified risks can be reasonably reduced or sufficiently managed before taking a decision.

Unfair dismissal and religious proselytizing

The Court of Appeal in Kuteh v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust, has held that a nurse was not unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct when she continued to initiate discussions with patients about religion after being given a lawful management instruction to stop doing so after patient complaints.

In this case a nurse, working in a pre-operative assessment role, often took the opportunity to talk to patients about religion. Complaints were made by several patients, leading the matron to speak to the nurse about the inappropriateness of her actions. She assured the matron she would no longer initiate conversations with patients about religion. She then breached that assurance, with more patient complaints about imposed prayers and psalm singing. Disciplinary proceedings were brought and the nurse was dismissed.

The employment tribunal found the dismissal fair and the EAT refused permission to appeal. On appeal against that refusal, the nurse complained that the tribunal had failed to distinguish between true evangelism and improper proselytism in considering the impact of the right under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) to manifest religion on the fairness of the dismissal.

Rejecting the appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed that there is a distinction between the manifestation of religious beliefs and the inappropriate promotion or proselytising of those beliefs. In this case a dismissal for improper proselytizing (ie attempting to convert others to a particular religion) at work was not unfair nor a breach of Article 9.

As to the fairness of the dismissal, the Trust did not have a blanket ban on religious speech in the workplace. It only considered it to be inappropriate for the nurse to initiate discussions about religion with patients and asked her to obey a lawful management instruction not to do so. It was the improper manifestation of her beliefs that led to her dismissal.


In cases for unfair dismissal as well as for religious discrimination cases, an employee will not succeed in a claim for either where they have been instructed to stop proselytizing in the course of their employment but continue to do so.

Read the original article on

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
19 Sep 2019, Seminar, Birmingham, UK

Providing GCs, Heads of Legal and senior in-house lawyers with timely, topical and practical legal advice on a variety of topics.

26 Sep 2019, Seminar, London, UK

Providing GCs, Heads of Legal and senior in-house lawyers with timely, topical and practical legal advice on a variety of topics.

8 Oct 2019, Seminar, Birmingham, UK

Supporting the development of paralegals, trainees and lawyers of up to five years' PQE by providing valuable knowledge and guidance together with practical tips.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions