Resources: Employment

  • Do Employees Have an Expectation of Privacy in Their Text Messages?

    September 2016

    by Delayne Sartison K.C.

    Information and evidence obtained from social media or electronic communications is playing an increasingly important role in the workplace, but employers must be conscious of employee privacy rights.  As a result, the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision regarding whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in sent text messages is of particular interest to employers.

    Read More +

    Do Employees Have an Expectation of Privacy in Their Text Messages?
  • Just How Much Might Those Hurt Feelings Be Worth In British Columbia? BC Court of Appeal Weighs In

    September 2016

    The likelihood of parties in British Columbia coming to a mutually agreeable resolution of human rights disputes may have just become more unlikely as a result of the BC Court of Appeal’s recent decision in University of British Columbia v. Kelly, 2016 BCCA 271.

    Read More +

    Just How Much Might Those Hurt Feelings Be Worth In British Columbia? BC Court of Appeal Weighs In
  • Employer Pays For Shoddy Workplace Investigation

    August 2016

    by James D. Kondopulos

    The B.C. Supreme Court’s decision in Lau v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2015 BCSC 1639 provides a reminder of the crucial importance of conducting a fair, objective and thorough workplace investigation, especially where dishonesty or fraud is alleged.

    An investigative stitch in time could well have saved the employer in this case nine months’ worth of damages for failure to provide termination notice, $30,000 in aggravated damages and costs.

    Read More +

    Employer Pays For Shoddy Workplace Investigation
  • Is it Discriminatory to Exclude Childless Employees From a Child-Focused Benefit Payment?

    August 2016

    by Jennifer S. Russell

    In Nelson v. Bodwell High School (No. 2), 2016 BCHRT 75 a single, male teacher with no children claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his family status because he was not eligible for his employer’s Child Benefit Scheme (“CBS”).  The CBS provided an annual payment of $1,200 per dependent child to each full time employee with at least one year of continuing service.  Mr. Nelson did not have any children so he did not qualify for any payment under the CBS.

    Read More +

    Is it Discriminatory to Exclude Childless Employees From a Child-Focused Benefit Payment?
  • Undocumented Obligations: The Creation of an Oral Fixed Term Employment Contract

    July 2016

    by Michael R. Kilgallin

    While it is fairly common for terms of an employment contract to be partially written and partially oral, the oral terms tend to be more nebulous. In James v. The Hollypark Organization Inc., 2016 BCSC 495, the dispute centered on the existence of an oral term.

    Read More +

    Undocumented Obligations: The Creation of an Oral Fixed Term Employment Contract
  • When Does Inter-Personal Conflict Become a “Significant Work-Related Stressor”?

    July 2016

    by Thomas A. Roper K.C.

    It is often difficult to determine whether personal harassment, rudeness or simple bad manners meets the threshold of a “significant work related stressor” potentially qualifying the target of such behaviour for Workers’ Compensation benefits.

    Read More +

    When Does Inter-Personal Conflict Become a “Significant Work-Related Stressor”?
  • BC Court of Appeal grants 8 months of reasonable notice to 43-year old IT employee with 2.5 years of service: Munoz v. Sierra Systems Group Inc., 2016 BCCA 140

    June 2016

    by Ryan Copeland

    Sierra Systems Group Inc. (“Sierra”) recruited Ruben Cuesta Munoz (“Cuesta”) to work as an IT specialist for its client, Goldcorp Inc. (“Goldcorp”). During the recruitment process, Sierra informed Cuesta that his employment would be long-term.

    Read More +

    BC Court of Appeal grants 8 months of reasonable notice to 43-year old IT employee with 2.5 years of service: Munoz v. Sierra Systems Group Inc., 2016 BCCA 140
  • Honesty is the Best Policy, Again – Antunes v. Limen Structures Ltd.

    June 2016

    by Gavin Marshall

    For some time, the employment relationship has been held to a standard of good faith and fair dealing, at least in respect to the administration of the employment contract and especially upon termination of employment. Cases from the Supreme Court of Canada such as Wallace and Keays v. Honda have left the law of employment with a residual philosophy that fair dealing is expected of employers.

     

    Read More +

    Honesty is the Best Policy, Again – Antunes v. Limen Structures Ltd.
  • Ontario Court Affirms “Family Status” Protection in the Workplace

    May 2016

    by Gavin Marshall

    Family status discrimination, and the related obligation to accommodate family status, continues its trajectory of growth in the landscape of workplace legal relationships. Employers diminish the importance of employee obligations to family, especially children, at their peril.

    Read More +

    Ontario Court Affirms “Family Status” Protection in the Workplace
  • Employee’s Damages Owed to Former Employer Significantly Reduced

    May 2016

    by Brandon Hillis

    In Consbec Inc. v. Walker, 2016 BCCA 114, the B.C. Court of Appeal significantly reduced the amount of damages owed by Peter Walker to his former employer, Consbec Inc., and provided valuable insight into the steps which must be taken by employers in order to justify damages claims against former employees.

    Read More +

    Employee’s Damages Owed to Former Employer Significantly Reduced
  • 1 20 21 22 23 24 28