• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Blog Signup 📨
  • 22nd Annual Ontario Employment Law Conference 📢

First Reference Talks

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

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources

British Columbia Court of Appeal

By Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services | 3 Minutes Read February 24, 2016

Sex based discrimination and poisoned work environment

Does an employee have to be “sexually” harassed in order for there to be a breach of the Human Rights Code? This issue was determined in a recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Article by Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services / Employee Relations, Human Rights, Payroll, Union Relations / British Columbia Court of Appeal, compensation, damages, discrimination, discrimination on the grounds of sex, employment law, employment relationship, Faryna v. Chorny, Hill v. Intersteam Technologies Inc., Human Rights code of Ontario, injury to dignity, injury to feelings and self-respect, Kelly Hill, Kevin Sambrano human rights paralegal, monetary awards, Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, poisoned work environment, policies and procedures, prohibited grounds of discrimination, sexual harassment, the Human Rights Code, workplace, workplace environment, workplace sexual harassment

By McCarthy Tétrault LLP | 2 Minutes Read September 8, 2015

Context is key: New trial for dismissed CIBC employee

Rule of lawIn a decision handed down April 27, 2015, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. In particular, the court found that the trial judge had misapprehended the evidence and CIBC’s legal arguments, such that the trial judge’s overall conclusion could not stand.

Article by McCarthy Tétrault LLP / Employee Relations, Employment Standards, Payroll, Union Relations / aggravated and punitive damages, breach of the final warning, British Columbia Court of Appeal, CIBC’s Code of Conduct, discipline, Employee Obligations, employment law, flawed investigation, investigations, just cause, litigation, misconduct, policies and procedures, termination, violations of policies

By Earl Altman | 4 Minutes Read March 14, 2014

Picky, picky: How selective can a dismissed employee be in mitigation efforts?

When advising a wrongfully terminated employee as to her legal rights and obligations, I always point out that a wrongful dismissal claim is not like winning the lottery. While employers are obligated to provide reasonable notice of termination or payment in lieu of such notice, terminated employees must make “reasonable efforts” to find new employment. As is often the case, the devil is in the details. What must a dismissed employee do to meet her obligation to mitigate? What have courts determined to be reasonable steps? What conduct has been held to be unreasonable? From whose perspective will reasonableness be judged–the employers or the employees?

Article by Earl Altman / Employee Relations, Employment Standards, Payroll / British Columbia Court of Appeal, compensation, dismissed employee, duty to mitigate, employee failed to take reasonable steps to find a job, employee’s mitigation choices, employee’s mitigation efforts, employment law, failure to mitigate, mitigation efforts, payment in lieu, reasonable notice of termination, refusal to accept a job offer, termination, terminations, trade or profession, wrongfully terminated employee

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference Inc. (known as La Référence in Quebec) provides Canadian organizations of any size with practical and authoritative resources to help ensure compliance.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources

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 - 2021 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy