• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Blog Signup 📨

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

Archives for May 2012

By Alison J. Bird | 2 Minutes Read May 28, 2012

How far can an employer go in imposing appearance-based requirements?

In the employment setting, there is a constant tension between an employer’s desire to control its image and employees’ rights to be free from discrimination and to freely express themselves. While it is generally accepted that an employer may impose appearance-based requirements if it establishes a legitimate business reason for the rule, it seems hard to believe that an employer could justify refusing to hire a person based on their physical appearance. However,...

Article by Alison J. Bird / Employee Relations, Human Rights / appearance, BFOR, bona fide occupational requirements, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, discrimination, discriminatory hiring practices, employment law, ethnicity, Freedome of expression, gender, human rights code, legitimate business reason, Physical appearance, stereotypical assumptions

By Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD | 3 Minutes Read May 25, 2012

Injured worker was not able to receive loss of earning benefits after his termination

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decided in February that an injured worker who was receiving workers’ compensation benefits up to his termination was not entitled to any further benefits as of the date of his termination. Does this seem fair?

Article by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD / Health and Safety / denied benefits, dissent, employment law, loss of earnings, modified work, no loss of earnings, termination, wage loss, workers compensation, WSIAT, wsib

By Marie-Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor | < 1 Minutes Read May 24, 2012

Slaw: Could cellphone use constitute electronic presence at crime?

The National Post recently presented the interesting case in which a New Jersey judge must decide whether someone can be “electronically present” in a car, even if they physically aren’t there, and, if so, whether the person can be held liable for events that take place, or that are caused by their electronic presence.

Article by Marie-Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor / Employee Relations, Health and Safety / ban on cellphone use, cellphone use, Distracted driving, the Traffic Safety (Distracted Driving) Amendment Act, vicarious liability

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 14
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference is the leading publisher of up to date, practical and authoritative HR compliance and policy databases that are essential to ensure organizations meet their due diligence and duty of care requirements.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy