Penalties and Fines
Contravention à une disposition en matière de santé et sécurité du travail? Une accusation d’homicide involontaire coupable pourrait en résulter!
La Cour supérieure a rendu une décision qui élargit la portée du Code criminel dans le cas de violations de dispositions en matière de santé et sécurité du travail. Dans Fournier c. R., la Cour supérieure indique qu’une accusation d’homicide involontaire coupable peut être fondée sur une infraction de responsabilité stricte en matière de santé et sécurité au travail.
Noise is a serious health hazard, and if worker exposure is not eliminated or controlled, it can cause permanent hearing loss, physical and psychological stress, reduced productivity, and significant interference with communication causing further accidents and injuries. The Ontario Ministry of Labour has released a revised noise guideline in December 2016 to accompany Ontario Regulation 381/15. Regulation 381/15, effective July 1, 2016, sets out requirements for noise protection in all workplaces in the province.
Although the Tribunal found there to be a contravention of settlement, it deemed that the delay in receiving the monies was relatively minor, and therefore an award of compensation was not warranted.
January is a month of resolutions, fresh starts, and goals. It’s also a good time to run away from 2016 and the upsets and surprises the year rolled out. Here are 3 lessons that 2016 taught us as we all dig in to a new year in the workplace.
At the beginning of a new year, it’s good to wonder what is in store in 2017 for HR law and payroll? Let’s discuss and provide practical steps HR and payroll can take to prepare for these trends and changes.
Until the last few years formal workplace investigations were relatively uncommon. Recent changes to the law however have totally changed the legal landscape relating to workplace investigations. To reduce legal exposure and save costs, I believe most employers should ensure that at least one employee receives workplace investigation training. This blog discusses four scenarios where workplace investigations are required or recommended.
Why reinvent the wheel? Drafting employment contracts, policies, termination letters and releases based on a past precedent is often a good place to start. It is usually both time and cost efficient, and for someone unfamiliar with the document, it’s a great learning opportunity. When using a precedent or online resource, here are the top 3 tips to ensure the document is legally enforceable in your workplace.
Defending a lawsuit is not the new black, or: If you stick your head in the sand for six years, the most likely outcome is suffocation
You have probably heard about the recent allegations of sexual assault against a WestJet pilot, and how WestJet failed to properly handle the allegation. Here is a quick summary: a former WestJet flight attendant, Mandalena Lewis, has filed a claim in the B.C. Supreme Court alleging that, after she reported that she was sexually assaulted on a layover in Hawaii in 2010, WestJet did not properly investigate the allegation. In fact, they chose to protect the pilot and eventually fired her for pursuing the matter.
When it comes to employment standards legislation, employers must remember that just because an employee agrees to something, that does not make it lawful. More importantly, parties cannot contract out of employment standards requirements, and employers that breach employment standards legislation expose themselves to significant risk, even if the employee in question appears to have acquiesced. This often arises when it comes to overtime or vacation.
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: a case where an employee was deemed to be constructively dismissed after a temporary layoff; a decision that leaves employers questioning their bonus policies; and salary projections for 2017 released by The Conference Board of Canada.
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: a case where an employer’s appeal to not pay unpaid wages and termination pay was somewhat successful; a matter where an arbitrator issued very different decisions when it came to two employees who grieved their terminations; and two cases that address employee entitlement to damages in lieu of a bonus on termination.
In a recent matter heard before the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta (the Tribunal), it was decided that an employer discriminated against its employee in the course of her employment, on the ground of gender, in both sexual harassment and pregnancy. Such action is contrary to the Alberta Human Rights Act. In coming to its conclusion, the Tribunal had to address whether the employee had established a prima facie case of discrimination. If so, did the employer have a defence to the discrimination?