Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

JM_

Members
  • Posts

    52,426
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    104

Everything posted by JM_

  1. you have to have a food safety plan for whatever you're cooking commercially, and whatever the end product is has to be cooked to 74C internal temp. I think the cross-contamination the firefighter was concerned over was contact with animal products not the cooking temp.
  2. I can kinda see Phil's point, probably not where he envisioned ending up.
  3. thats a tough one, food allergies suck. But even in your case if the employer can claim undue hardship they may not have to accommodate you. E.g., for the vegan guy, is it really reasonable that they have to have a someone who knows how to prepare vegan food, a separate grill, tool, etc. and fly in a special diet just for one guys preferences? Is that really reasonable in an extreme situation like fighting a major fire? ON may have painted itself into a corner though with its creed policy. https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/what-duty-accommodate It is also important to consider that there is a reasonable limit to how far your employer or service provider has to go to accommodate your needs. Sometimes accommodation is not possible because it would cost too much, or create health or safety risks. This is known as undue hardship. Your employer or service provider can claim undue hardship as the reason why certain policies or practices need to stay in place, even though they may have a negative effect on you. They will need to provide sufficient evidence. Example of Undue Hardship A pilot for a small airline develops a medical condition that limits his peripheral vision. Because of his condition, he is no longer allowed to fly planes. The airline has very few employees, and there are no other jobs to offer him. The employer could argue that keeping the pilot on their payroll would cause undue hardship, and that letting him go is their only option.
  4. This is going to come down to whether or not there was a lawful duty to accommodate him, and because part of the process was finding out about meal preferences, he might have a chance at winning something but this seems like an employment contract issue to me, not a human rights one. But if ON hadn't asked him I don't think they'd be on the hook at all. We'd have to see his contract to know what the gov't promised him to know what he was supposed to receive for meal accommodation. He has the right to be a vegan, but he doesn't have a right to force any employer or business to feed him how he wants to be fed, the charter doesn't extend that far (at least not yet but I'd have a hard time seeing the SCoC ruling that vegan choices are charter protected). Its not like the situation for people in jail where theres no access to choice. This could get ridiculous - some vegans won't eat vegan food if it comes from a company that also has branches that produce non-vegan food, so do we have to accommodate specific brands for him too? I think employers would be covered if in the future they had a statement that there's no guarantee that meal preferences can be accommodated. Expecting bush cooks to have separate vegan grills and tools isn't a charter right. But it is a problem if you say you'll accommodate beliefs and then don't do it, but thats a contract issue not a charter issue imo. Edit: sorry I thought BC had hired him initially but he was an ON employee. They have a 2015 "policy" to accommodate stuff like this so he might win his case based on ON not following their own policies but again thats ON choice, this isn't a charter thing.
  5. why? in all seriousness, what do you think it would prove? I think that kind of investigation wouldn't lead to anything but more people losing faith in government and purchases like the one Zepp is angry about. Why is he angry? He's associating things that have nothing to do with the legitimate need for these ships. Not everything a government does requires the opposition to freak out for an investigation, I think we're in danger of becoming a lot like the US that way. I don't think anyone up here wants to see the literally daily demands for investigations that we now see in the US.
  6. agree it was dumb to comment on it. He's made lots of blurt outs in his history. For me anyway its a massive stretch that so many people would lie for him.
  7. sure, but so what? the RCMP, Vance and JD would have told Trudeau they were going after Norman. All 3 say Trudeau didn't interfere. Why would they lie?
  8. enlighten yourself: https://trudeaumetre.polimeter.org I honestly don't give a rats hiney if you like the guy or not but at least know what you'r talking about, or make blanket statements, your call.
  9. sorry meant "million" - see how we Liberals escalate the spending? I'm actually fine with the Norman project too. I just don't believe the uber-spin that the Norman prosecution was driven secretly by Trudeau. There's no evidence for his involvement in it at all, all the major players involved say so.
  10. yeah... you're too far to one side to have a reasonable discussion. A lot of good things have happened.
  11. would you cut Trudeau the same slack if he didn't go to a competition for a 650 billion contract in Quebec? or would you go full Zepp and claim its all friends?
  12. what evidence? that Harper sole sourced a project to Davie? so Harper wasn't trying to get votes too in Quebec? please Rob. We have 3 shipyards capable of taking on the work, so "friends" or not the jobs are going to get passed around. This isn't a smoking gun Rob, its not even a warm bullet.
  13. buddy should just change his user name to "IhateJimBenningandeverythinghehasdoneandeverwilldo" to just save us time.
  14. If you take off the Trudeau hate goggles for a minute Rob you'd realize this is a good thing for Canada, particularly North Vancouver. This has nothing to do with "Liberal friends" this is needed to have a hope of maintaining any kind of sovereignty in our own Arctic waters.
  15. oh well at least we didn't have to witness 4th line Kovalchuk, thats gotta hurt more.
  16. I have to know, who are you really? you have to be someone Benning cut from a team at some point. Everything you post is the same vomit of hate about the guy and his choices
  17. self evident evidence is evident, even if its only evident on one's own mind
  18. thats one of the stupidest things I've ever seen written, on CDC or elsewhere.
  19. thats different, if he wants to be there then its a no brainer for him to sign for a little less.
×
×
  • Create New...