First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll, HR & Employment Law

decorative image

Supreme Court of Canada

The damages formerly known as Wallace – Are they still relevant?

It has been about eight years since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Honda Canada v Keays, which dramatically altered the law with respect to damages relating to bad faith conduct in the course of dismissal. Is the topic still relevant? A recent Ontario decision confirms that it is.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Supreme Court decision may protect defendants charged with OHSA offences from unreasonable delay

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada could have the effect of allowing corporations charged under the OHSA to seek remedies when a trial is unreasonably delayed in a considerably broader swath of cases.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pre-employment drug and alcohol testing

The law of drug and alcohol testing in Canada is in a state of evolution. While the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd., provided important guidance on the strict standard that employers must meet in order to subject employees to random testing, it raised many questions regarding how those principles would be applied to other forms of testing.

 

, , , , , , , ,

Saskatchewan government’s do-over: another version of essential services legislation proposed

Bill 183, The Saskatchewan Employment (Essential Services) Amendment Act, 2015, proposes a new Part VII in the Employment Act, entitled Essential Services. The Bill is currently in third reading.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Damage awards for sexual harassment/sexual assault on the rise

Last month, I wrote about a vulnerable, low paid employee who obtained $150,000 from her former employer by filing a complaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code. This month, I am writing about a vulnerable, low paid employee who obtained $300,000 from her former employer using Ontario’s court system.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

SCC constitutionalizes the right to strike for unionized employees

In a surprising move, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned its own precedent and found that the right to strike was protected under the Charter.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Slaw: Supreme Court confirms right to strike constitutionally protected

The Supreme Court of Canada in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan confirmed once and for all that the right to strike is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SCC orders parliament to reconsider RCMP labour relations

Until last Friday, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was Canada’s only police force that was legislatively prohibited from unionizing. On January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled…

 

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Supreme Court of Canada gives quick win to BCTF on parental benefits

The Supreme Court of Canada recently made a rare oral ruling from the bench, giving the B.C. Teachers’ Federation a quick win in their appeal of a decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal regarding discrimination and unequal treatment under the Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No procedural duty to accommodate

The Federal Court of Appeal recently ruled in Canada Human Rights Commission v Attorney General of Canada and Bronwyn Cruden, that employers do not have a separate procedural duty to accommodate employees and any procedural inadequacy throughout the accommodation process is not critical where the employer’s actions do not constitute discrimination.

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The Wal-Mart saga: one more chapter

On June 27th, the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision in the Wal-Mart saga that will have a major impact on employment law in Quebec.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wrongful dismissal law: Summary judgment motions – the way of the future

Since the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision earlier this year in Hryniak v. Mauldin 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII) more and more employees are bringing summary judgment motions to resolve their wrongful dismissal cases.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada: Ontario Court of Appeal rocks the wrongful dismissal world

On May 22, 2014 the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) released the Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada decision. It could rock the wrongful dismissal world.

 

, , , , , , , , , ,

The latest: When does a constructively dismissed employee have to stay with their employer?

In 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada issued Evans v Teamsters Local Union No. 31, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 661, one of the leading decisions on constructive dismissal in Canada. In that case, the Court held that a constructively dismissed employee must mitigate their damages by continuing to work with the dismissing employer if a reasonable person would accept this mitigation opportunity. In determining whether it is reasonable to mitigate by working for the dismissing employer, the Court stated that one should consider the following factors:

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Better the devil you know? employee’s obligation to accept an alternate position

Ever since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2008 in a case Evans v. Teamsters Local Union, the courts have recognized the obligation of an employee, in certain circumstances, to accept an offer of alternate employment from their employer following dismissal. This has put many employees in the awkward position of determining whether or not the offer of employment is one that must be accepted based on the Evans’ reasoning. The difficulty faced by many employees’ counsel is the degree of difference in the position being offered, and whether such difference justifies the employee rejecting the offer of employment.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Previous Posts