Supreme Court of Canada
December 8, 2017 Lisa Stam, Spring Law Government Budgets, Throne Speeches and Plans, Human Resources, Human Rights
Last week a new judge was put forward as the recommended candidate to replace our current Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who will be retiring this month. The candidate, Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Sheilah Martin, would fill a seat that some had expected to go to an Indigenous judge, or a judge for British Columbia.
Canada's court system, employment law, gender balance, Superior Court system, Supreme Court judge, Supreme Court of Canada
July 7, 2017 Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources, Notice, Damages and Settlements, Payroll
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.
bad faith, bad faith dismissal, bad faith termination, damages, damages arising out of bad faith, damages arising out of the manner of dismissal, Dismissal, duty to act in good faith, employment law, employment relationship, Keays v. Honda Canada Inc, Mulvihill v. Ottawa (City), notice period, Supreme Court of Canada, termination, terminations, The Damages Formerly Known as Wallace, Wallace damages, Wallace v. United Grain Growers
August 12, 2016 Stringer LLP Health and Safety, Human Resources, Human Rights, Penalties and Fines
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.
canadian charter of rights and freedoms, ceiling of delay of 18 months, criminal code, employment law, irreparably harmed ability to defend, Jordan test, occupational health and safety act, OHSA, OHSA breach, OHSA prosecutions, prejudice, R v Jordan, right to be tried within a reasonable time, stay of proceedings, Supreme Court of Canada, test under section 11(b)
December 7, 2015 Alison J. Bird Employee Relations, Health and Safety, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights
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.
bona fide occupational requirement, drug and alcohol use, employment law, impaired at work, law of drug and alcohol testing, positive post-incident tests, pre-employment testing, random testing, Supreme Court of Canada
November 19, 2015 Christina Catenacci Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources, Human Rights, Union Relations
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.
bargaining impass, bargaining process, canadian charter of rights and freedoms, collective agreement, Collective Bargaining, essential services, essential services law, Labour Law, public sector workers, Public Service Essential Services Act, right to strike, Saskatchewan, Supreme Court of Canada, The Saskatchewan Employment (Essential Services) Amendment Act 2015, union, work stoppage
August 11, 2015 Doug MacLeod, MacLeod Law Firm Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights, Notice, Damages and Settlements, Payroll, Union Relations, Wages and Compensation
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.
aggravated damages, damage awards, employment law, future lost income, human rights code, no-discrimination policy, pay in lieu of reasonable notice, punitive damages, sexual assault, sexual harassment, Supreme Court of Canada, violation of the Code, wrongful dismissal case
March 20, 2015 Employer Advisor, McCarthy Tétrault LLP Employee Relations, Human Resources, Union Relations
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.
bargaining agents, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Collective Bargaining, Constitutionalizing of the right to strike, dispute resolution mechanism, essential services, Labour Law, management, Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada, right of freedom of association, right to strike, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan, Supreme Court of Canada, unionized employees, Unions
February 27, 2015 Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor Employee Relations, Human Resources, Union Relations
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.
canadian charter of rights and freedoms, Collective Bargaining, essential services legislation, freedom of association and expression, Industrial Relations, Labour Law, labour relations, Labour Trilogy, limit the ability of public sector workers to go on strike, Public Service Essential Services Act, right to associate and organize, right to bargain collectively, right to strike, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan’s essential services legislation, Supreme Court of Canada, Trade Union, Trade Union Amendment Act
February 9, 2015 Employer Advisor, McCarthy Tétrault LLP Employee Relations, Human Resources, Union 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…
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Collective Bargaining, constitutionality, freedom of association, Industrial Relations, Labour Law, Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), Public Service Labour Relations Act, Supreme Court of Canada, Trade Union, union, unionizing, Unions
December 2, 2014 Employer Advisor, McCarthy Tétrault LLP Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights, Payroll, Pensions and Benefits, Union Relations, Wages and Compensation
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.
B.C. Teachers’ Federation, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, collective agreement, concession bargaining, discrimination, discriminatory and unequal treatment, Employment Insurance Act, human rights code, leave and benefit policies, parental benefits, pregnancy benefits and parental benefits, pregnancy leave or parental leave, supplemental employment benefits, Supreme Court of Canada, union
November 19, 2014 Devry Smith Frank LLP Employee Relations, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights, Notice, Damages and Settlements, Payroll
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.
accommodation process, Canada Human Rights Commission, discrimination, duty to accommodate, employment law, federal court of appeal, investigate a complaint, Meiorin, monetary penalty, Ontario Human Rights Code, Supreme Court of Canada, undue hardship
July 14, 2014 Occasional Contributors Employee Relations, Human Resources, Union Relations
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.
business as usual decision, employment law, employment law in Quebec, filing of a petition for certification, grievance, Labour Law, modification of the employees' working conditions, Quebec, Quebec Labour Code, Supreme Court of Canada, termination of employment, union, unionization, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 503, Wal-Mart saga, Wal-Mart store in Jonquière, working conditions
July 11, 2014 Doug MacLeod, MacLeod Law Firm Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Notice, Damages and Settlements, Payroll, Wages and Compensation
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.
alternative employment, appropriate reasonable notice period, discoveries or a mediation, duty to mitigate, employer terminates an employee without just cause, employment law, failed to mitigate his loss of employment, Hryniak v. Mauldin, just cause for termination, reasonable notice period, statement of claim, summary judgment, Supreme Court of Canada, termination, termination with cause, terminations, What is decided at a summary judgment motion?, wrongful dismissal
June 10, 2014 Doug MacLeod, MacLeod Law Firm Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Notice, Damages and Settlements, Payroll
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.
actionable wrong, Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada, Dismissal, employment law, pay in lieu of reasonable notice, punitive damages, Supreme Court of Canada, termination, terminations, Wallace damages, wrongful dismissal
June 9, 2014 Alison J. Bird Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Notice, Damages and Settlements, Payroll, Union Relations
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:
a constructively dismissed employee must mitigate their damages, constructive dismissal, continuing to work with the dismissing employer, duty to mitigate, employment law, Evans v Teamsters, Farwell v Citair Inc. (General Coach Canada), mitigate damages, mitigation, notice period, Supreme Court of Canada, termination, terminations, working conditions
My employer denied me the right to have a support person present at a meeting with HR regarding an investigation into workplace bullying and psychological... – Feb 02, 2:14 PM
Which is more practical, absolutely no office romance policy or allowed but need to disclose? IMO, the need to disclose, while accommodating, complexity and unnecessary... – Dec 15, 1:39 PM
