Remove the 'Canadian experience' employment barrier: OHRC -- Media Monitoring

Today's update

International Doctors Network 

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and

the Learning Enrichment Foundation

Invite you to learn about the OHRC’s new

Policy on removing the “Canadian experience” barrier

Date: Monday, July 29, 2013

• Remove “Canadian experience” employment barrier: Ontario Human Rights Commission, The Canadian Progressive
  

  The new policy sets out the OHRC’s position that a strict requirement for “Canadian experience” is discriminatory, and can only be used in rare circumstances. Employers and regulatory bodies need to ask about all of a job applicant’s previous work – where they got their experience does not matter. The policy also tells employers and regulatory bodies how to develop practices, policies and programs that do not result in discrimination.
  “We welcome this new policy,” said Bill Thomas, Chief Executive Officer and Senior Partner, KPMG. “Businesses that invest in newcomers benefit from the skills and rich experience they have to offer and in return, become more competitive in today’s global economy.”

• Removing the "Canadian experience" barrier (brochure) | OHRC ...
• CBC.ca | Metro Morning | The Canadian Experience
• Tearing down the 'Canadian experience' roadblock Toronto Star
• Demanding 'Canadian experience' from newcomers may breach Ontario’s human rights code Toronto Star
• Remove “Canadian experience” employment barrier 
  CanIndia News
• 'Canadian experience' requirement discriminatory: OHRC, Canadian HR Reporter  
• Media Advisory - Remove the "Canadian experience" as an employment ... Canada NewsWire (press release)
• OHRC's Legitimate employment requirements:

A requirement for Canadian experience, even when implemented in good faith, can be a barrier in recruiting, selecting, hiring or accrediting, and may result in discrimination. Under the Human Rights Code, where discrimination is found, the organization or institution the claim is made against may establish a defence to the discrimination by showing that the policy, rule or requirement that resulted in unequal treatment is a legitimate standard, or a “bona fide” requirement. In the Meiorin^[25] decision, the Supreme Court of Canada set out a three-part test to determine whether a standard that results in discrimination can be justified as a reasonable and bona fide one. The organization or institution must establish on a balance of probabilities that the standard, factor, requirement or rule:


1. was adopted for a purpose or goal that is rationally connected to the function being performed
2. was adopted in good faith, in the belief that it is needed to fulfill the purpose or goal, and
3. is reasonably necessary to accomplish its purpose or goal, because it is impossible to accommodate the claimant without undue hardship.