Two Upcoming Human Rights Cases Could Change How Employers Approach Domestic Violence at Work

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Ahluwalia drew significant attention for recognizing a new tort of intimate partner violence. Employers should also be watching two human rights cases that may have important implications for workplace obligations related to domestic violence.

Those cases are:

• KL v Canada Post (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal)
• Ms F (formerly "The Worker") v TransLink Security Management (British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal)

I have spoken and written about both matters before because they raise a question that Canadian human rights tribunals have not yet directly answered:

Is domestic violence survivorship protected under existing human rights grounds such as sex, family status, marital status, and/or disability?

The answer could affect how employers approach accommodation, attendance management, discipline, workplace safety, and return-to-work planning when an employee is being subjected to domestic violence.

What happened in KL v Canada Post?

The hearing in KL v Canada Post concluded in May, and a decision is expected in the coming months.

KL alleges that Canada Post denied her opportunities and shortened her contract because she was a survivor of domestic violence.

The case also raises questions about disability. According to the allegations, coworkers reported concerns that KL appeared to be under the influence of drugs while at work. This brings into focus an issue that frequently arises in workplace domestic violence cases: the overlap between violence, trauma, mental health, substance use, and disability.

What happened in Ms F v TransLink Security Management?

The hearing in Ms F is scheduled to begin shortly.

The case concerns an employee who disclosed domestic violence and later faced employment consequences related to driver's licence requirements.

According to the allegations, Ms F missed several road tests. Some absences were connected to attending a disciplinary hearing involving her former partner and the abuse. Others were related to a concussion.

The employer allegedly returned Ms F to her previous, lower role after she did not obtain the required licence and later terminated her employment altogether.

The facts also raise a familiar concern for those working in this area: domestic violence-related brain injury. Research increasingly shows that concussions and other acquired brain injuries are common consequences of domestic violence. Yet these injuries are often overlooked or treated as isolated medical issues rather than part of a broader pattern of abuse.

The case also highlights another challenge faced by many survivors. Seeking help can become more complicated when the abusive partner works within the justice system or another institution that survivors may need to engage with (in this case, the RCMP).

The precedential value

These cases present the first opportunity for a Canadian human rights tribunal to directly consider whether domestic violence survivorship falls within existing protected grounds under human rights legislation.

Why are we only seeing these cases now?

Domestic violence has long been streated as a private matter. Even today, I regularly encounter employers who struggle to see how violence occurring outside the workplace could create workplace obligations. Even though for over a decade we have had health and safety and employment standards legislation clearly making it a workplace issue.

It doesn't help that our own government that created these laws do nothing to enforce them. For example, as I explained recently, the Ministry of Labour's health and safety inspectors receive no training on when the legal duty to act on IPV is triggered under OHSA. Their Policies and Procedures Manual only provides them with examples of safety planning that they should look for and educate employers on.

Having said that, these two human rights proceedings are part of a broader sea change I am seeing. For example, Parliament has just criminalized coercive control. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized a new tort of intimate partner violence. More jurisdictions across Canada are declaring intimate partner violence an epidemic. And employers are seeking more education and training on workplace domestic violence than ever before.

And so, these two cases may help move domestic violence from the margins of workplace law into the mainstream of how employers think about accommodation, safety, and legal risk.

It's possible the tribunals will not fully decide the question of whether IPV survivorship is subsumed under the existing human rights protected grounds (e.g. if the facts are not ripe for that). Even if that were to happen, employers should not assume domestic violence falls outside human rights law, as discussed below.

Domestic violence and sex-based discrimination

Human rights law already recognizes that decisions based on sex-based stereotypes can be discriminatory.

Imagine a manager deciding not to promote a male employee because they believe that a person who experienced abuse from a partner lacks leadership qualities. The same analysis can arise when assumptions are made about women and gender-expansive people experiencing domestic violence, particularly around reliability, judgment, commitment to work, or ability to perform their role.

Domestic violence and disability often overlap

Many survivors experience "disabilities" (within the meaning of human rights law) connected to the violence they have experienced.

These may include:

• Concussions and other acquired brain injuries
• Post-traumatic stress symptoms
• Anxiety
• Depression
• Substance use issues connected to trauma

Employers are already familiar with their duty to accommodate disability. What is sometimes missed is that accommodation efforts may fail if they address only the disability and ignore the underlying violence.

A workplace cannot effectively support an employee's recovery while overlooking the circumstances that continue to affect their safety, attendance, health, or ability to participate fully at work.

Human rights obligations do not exist in isolation

Viewing domestic violence through a human rights lens can also help employers meet obligations arising under other workplace laws, such as employment standards and health and safety.

A thoughtful accommodation process often creates a framework for addressing these responsibilities in a coordinated way.

What employers should do now

Employers do not need to wait for a tribunal decision before reviewing their approach to workplace domestic violence.

Questions worth asking include:

• Do managers know how to respond when an employee discloses domestic violence?
• Does your accommodation process account for trauma and brain injury?
• Are your workplace violence, disability, leave, and accommodation processes working together?
• Could employment decisions unintentionally rely on assumptions or stereotypes about survivors?
• Does your domestic violence policy reflect current legal requirements and leading practices?

The answers may reveal legal risks long before a complaint is filed.

Looking ahead

I will publish commentary once decisions are released in KL and Ms F.

In the meantime, employers do not need to wait for a tribunal decision before assessing their own workplace risks.

If you would like a practical overview of how employment law, human rights law, occupational health and safety requirements, and workplace domestic violence obligations intersect, start with my Workplace Domestic Violence Readiness Self-Assessment. This is different from the excellent resources created by non-profit subject matter experts in that it specifically addesses the legal interplay.

For a deeper look at the connection between domestic violence, disability, acquired brain injury, and workplace accommodation, you can also watch my webinar presented with the Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children and the Learning Network at Western University.

If your organization already has a domestic violence policy in place, consider whether it reflects current legal requirements and leading practices. I offer fixed-fee workplace domestic violence policy reviews that identify legal gaps, implementation challenges, and opportunities to strengthen compliance.

For organizations looking to build a more comprehensive approach, I also provide workplace domestic violence program development, manager training, investigations, and strategic advisory services.

Contact me to learn more. I'd love to speak with you.