Resources

Maintaining Privilege Over An Employer’s Internal Accident Investigation

A recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench underscores the importance of taking early steps to retain legal counsel to assist employers with serious workplace accidents. In Alberta v. Suncor Energy Inc, 2016 ABQB 264, certain documents and records created or collected during an accident investigation were protected by litigation and solicitor-client privilege where legal counsel made decisions with respect to the accident investigation within hours of the event.

Read More +

A Bad Termination Meeting Could Lead to an Unenforceable Release

Employers often rely on signed releases after termination to ensure that employees cannot later sue them for wrongful dismissal. It has always been the law that in certain limited circumstances a release may not be an effective defence (for example, due to unconscionability, lack of consideration, or duress) but those situations are rare.

Read More +

Bartender Claims his Termination for Smoking Marijuana at Work was Discriminatory

Darin Burton alleged that his employer, Tugboat Annie’s Pub (the “Employer”), discriminated against him on the ground of physical disability when he was discharged for smoking marijuana at the workplace. Burton claimed that the Employer had been aware since the outset of his employment that he used medical marijuana to deal with chronic pain from degenerative disk disease.

Read More +

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

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 +

Refusal of Work Not For Safety Reasons: Discharge For Just and Reasonable Cause Upheld

In a recent decision, Arbitrator Lorne Slotnick upheld the discharge of an employee who attempted to improperly use medical restrictions and the right to refuse unsafe work under occupational health and safety legislation as the basis for refusing a work assignment.

Read More +

Just How Much Might Those Hurt Feelings Be Worth In British Columbia? BC Court of Appeal Weighs In

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 +

Culpable Inefficiency and a Smorgasbord of Issues

Arbitrator Larry Steinberg faced a plethora of issues in the recent case of Toronto District School Board v. CUPE, Local 4400 (Naccarato Grievance), [2015] O.L.A.A. No. 429.  The decision makes for an interesting read and contains a number of chestnuts that are useful for practitioners in the world of labour arbitration.

Read More +

Alberta Court Confirms and Clarifies Requirements for Random Drug Testing

In the recent case of Suncor Energy Inc. v. Unifor, Local 707A, 2016 ABQB 269, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench confirmed and clarified the test that an employer must meet in order to justify the unilateral imposition of random drug and alcohol testing in a unionized workplace.

Read More +

Employer Pays For Shoddy Workplace Investigation

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 +

Is it Discriminatory to Exclude Childless Employees From a Child-Focused Benefit Payment?

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 +