Employers normally have the right to expect that instructions to employees will be faithfully carried out. But what happens when the employer asks that employees do something dodgy or potentially illegal? What would you do when faced with an employer request you felt might not be within the law?
Something happened at the Academy Awards Sunday night that caught my eye and got me thinking about our current attitudes about equality and racism and human rights in general. I was supposed to write this week about the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act as per my last post. But the Oscars are much more interesting, don’t ya think?
The recent firing of Toronto Transit Commission head Gary Webster makes it difficult for the city to claim it is trying to run like a business. Webster, a 37-year TTC employee, was a year away from the end of his contract, and his termination without cause will likely cost the city at least $500,000 in severance pay, not to mention the costs associated with replacing him.
Business consultants Insperity offer six signs of expense account fraud…
I have read several articles in the last week regarding Apple Inc.’s manufacturing in China, through the company Foxconn. Perhaps it is time for us to take a step back and really understand what is going on here, and how this affects us in Canada.
When an employer seeks to rely on a breach of policy in disciplining an employee, the employer must prove that it clearly communicated the policy to the employee in question and has enforced the policy consistently. The importance of such communication in enforcement of workplace policies was demonstrated in Lambe v. Irving Oil Ltd.
Constructive dismissal, while still a source of concern for employers, is likely less of a threat than it is sometimes thought of. Employees placed in potential constructive dismissal suits must be very careful, or else they may find they have very limited recovery. However, an employer in British Columbia has attempted to push the weaknesses of constructive dismissal to the extreme. In fact it appears to have tried to push the concept farther than it can reasonably bear.
The Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Jones v. Tsige deals with a novel claim, one for damages for invasion of personal privacy. This decision has garnered a great deal of comment in the popular press in the time since its release. Is the decision as radical as some writers have suggested? What are the implications for privacy rights in Ontario, and, in particular, the conduct of employers and employees?
Andrew Lawson recently introduced our readers to the StopGap one-step ramp project at www.stopgap.ca. The group offers businesses in Ontario a one-step accessibility ramp for free. Sounds great, right? Well, during my several years on Ontario’s accessible built environment standards committee, we addressed the issue of one-step ramps and members raised valid reasons not to assume this is a fix in all situations. So what is the conundrum?
All jurisdictions in Canada provide for a number of public (also called statutory or general holidays) holidays each year. Some are common to all jurisdictions; others are specific to individual provinces and territories. This year, Family Day falls on Monday February 20, 2012.
After examining Canada’s international labour obligations, Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench, has confirmed that section 2(d) of the Charter (the freedom to associate) includes the right to strike. This is something the courts have historically refused to admit in their decisions.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada has been providing guidance to foreign nationals seeking extensions of their work permits through CPC Vegreville, while waiting for an LMO or CAQ to be approved. According to CIC, if a foreign national is ready to submit a work permit application to CPC Vegreville, but is waiting for an LMO or CAQ, the application may still be submitted, but only within two weeks of the expiry date of his or her existing work permit. In addition, proof that the LMO/CAQ request was made must also be included with the application.
On November 22, 2011, in response to an assessment of Iran’s nuclear program by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Canada imposed new sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act. Citizenship and Immigration Canada has now provided instructions on how it will apply these economic sanctions to Iranian immigrant investors.