Resources

  • Which Absences Properly “Count” for Attendance Management

    December 2017

    by Delayne Sartison K.C.

    The Federal Court of Appeal recently overturned a decision of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (the “Board”) concerning the National Attendance Management Policy (NAMP) promulgated by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) for its unionized employees: Bodnar v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service of Canada), 2017 FCA 171.

    Read More +

  • The Zellstoff Trilogy- Privacy v. Technology

    December 2017

    by Gavin Marshall

    In the age of technology and data collection, there is, or can be, a digital footprint and record of virtually all employee activity.

    Read More +

  • Executive’s Self-Dealing Can Lead to Rescission of Employment Agreement

    November 2017

    by Maggie Campbell

    The focus of this article is a case arising out of Ontario: UPM-Kymmene Corp. v. UPM-Kymmene Miramichi Inc., [2002] O.J. No. 2412 (S.C.J.), affirmed [2004] O.J. No. 636 (C.A.).

    Read More +

  • Boilerplate Non-Competition Clauses Are No Protection At All

    November 2017

    by Drew Demerse

    The B.C. Court of Appeal recently clarified the analytical framework regarding the enforceability of non-competition clauses in the employment context. In IRIS The Visual Group Western Canada Inc. v. Park, 2017 BCCA 301, the Court questioned the use of boilerplate language and reminded employers that restrictive covenants must be drafted with care.

    Read More +

  • Be Wary of Ambiguity: A “Bonus” Lesson for Employers

    November 2017

    by Ryan Copeland

    The recent BC Supreme Court case of Kenny v. Weatherhaven Global Resources Ltd., [2017] B.C.J. No. 1510 (S.C.) illustrates the perils of poorly drafted employment agreements.

     

    Read More +

  • When Human Rights Collide . . . Take Reasonable and Practical Steps to Minimize the Harm

    October 2017

    From time to time, employers will find themselves faced with circumstances where taking steps to avoid discriminating against a customer or client under the Human Rights Code will have the unintended result of the employer discriminating against its employees.  That is the situation Victoria Taxi faced in the  B.C. Court of Appeal’s recent decision, McCreath v. Victoria Taxi (1987) Ltd.

    Read More +

  • A Crack in the Dam? Merrifield v. Attorney General (Ont.) and the Undead Tort of Harassment

    October 2017

    by Gavin Marshall

    For many years, workplace law has generally proceeded on the assumption that remedies for harassing behaviour and civil “harassment” were, except in rare cases, outside the purview of the courts. Harassment, as a civil wrong, had developed within the administrative structure of human rights tribunals and grievance processes under collective agreements but there was no generally recognized common law “tort” of harassment.

    Read More +

  • BC Court of Appeal Restores Human Rights Tribunal Decision to Dismiss Complaint

    October 2017

    In Francescutti v. Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242, the British Columbia Court of Appeal restored a human rights tribunal decision to dismiss a complaint brought by a former City of Vancouver employee.  The decision provides useful support for the ability of a respondent to succeed on an application to dismiss a complaint, despite the presence of some conflicting facts raising issues of credibility.

    Read More +

  • The Significant (and Avoidable) Costs of a Poorly Run Workplace Investigation

    October 2017

    by Brandon Hillis

    A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal acts as a cautionary tale for all employers when it comes to conducting (or not conducting) workplace investigations.

    Read More +

  • B.C. Court Clarifies Limits on Departing Employee’s Use of Employer Information and Diversion of “Corporate Opportunity”

    October 2017

    In Sateri (Shanghai) Management Limited v. Vinall, 2017 BCSC 491, the B.C. Supreme Court summed up the law governing how far a departing employee can go in effectively assisting a new employer, including through sharing his or her current employer’s confidential information or in diverting a “corporate opportunity”.  The case also confirms that substantial damages will only be awarded against an employee if the employer can show it has suffered a resulting financial loss.

    Read More +

  • '
    1 29 30 31 32 33 43
    '