Les recours légaux des personnes proches aidantes au Québec en matière de discrimination et d'accommodement en milieu de travail en comparaison avec les autres provinces et territoires canadiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ : En octobre 2020, la Loi visant à reconnaître et à soutenir les personnes proches aidantes entre en vigueur. Le Gouvernement du Québec montre alors sa volonté d'appuyer les personnes proches aidantes (PPA), qui représentent un adulte québécois sur cinq. Néanmoins, au Québec, les protections légales offertes aux PPA en emploi diffèrent de celles des autres provinces et territoires canadiens. À cet effet, les lois sur les droits de la personne des provinces et territoires canadiens, à l'exception du Québec, prévoient toutes une protection contre la discrimination basée sur le statut familial, qui inclut plus largement la situation de proche aidance. Par ailleurs, la Commission des droits de la personne et de la jeunesse a revendiqué, lors des consultations entourant le projet de loi n°176, l'ajout du statut familial comme motif de discrimination interdit à la Charte québécoise. Malgré la recommandation de la Commission, l'ajout n'a pas été fait. Cette recherche a pour objectifs d'identifier, de décrire et de comparer les recours légaux des PPA au Québec en matière de discrimination en milieu de travail avec ceux des autres provinces et territoires canadiens. Pour ce faire, une approche qualitative exploratoire descriptive est utilisée. La collecte de données repose sur l'examen de sources documentaires, soit la jurisprudence provinciale et territoriale en matière de discrimination à l'emploi des PPA. Plus précisément, elle se fait par analyse thématique de contenus. L'analyse des résultats montre que les recours des PPA au Québec sont plus restreints que ceux des autres provinces et territoires canadiens. Il semble donc y avoir une inadéquation entre les besoins des PPA en emploi au Québec et les mécanismes qui protègent leur lien d'emploi. -- Mot(s) clé(s) en français : personne proche aidante, discrimination, accommodement, statut familial, recours légal, emploi. -- \nABSTRACT : In October 2020, the Act to Recognize and Support Caregivers comes into force. The Quebec government demonstrated its commitment to supporting caregivers, who represent one in five Quebec adults. Nevertheless, in Quebec, the legal protections offered to employed caregivers differ from those in other Canadian provinces and territories. The human rights legislation of all Canadian provinces and territories, with the exception of Quebec, provides protection against discrimination based on family status, which more broadly includes the situation of caregiving. During consultations on Bill 176, the Commission des droits de la personne et de la jeunesse called for family status to be added to the Quebec Charter as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Despite the Commission's recommendation, the addition has not been made. The objectives of this research are to identify, describe and compare the legal remedies available to caregivers in Quebec for discrimination and refusal to accommodate in the workplace with those in other Canadian provinces and territories. To achieve this, a qualitative exploratory descriptive approach is used. Data collection is based on an examination of documentary sources, namely provincial and territorial jurisprudence on employment discrimination against caregivers. More specifically, it is based on thematic content analysis. An analysis of the results reveals that the recourses available to caregivers in Quebec are more limited than in other Canadian provinces and territories. There consequently appears to be a mismatch between the needs of employed caregivers in Quebec and the mechanisms protecting their employment relationship. -- Mot(s) clé(s) en anglais : caregiver, discrimination, accommodation, family status, legal recourse, employment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".