Resources

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 +

Undocumented Obligations: The Creation of an Oral Fixed Term Employment Contract

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 +

BC Human Rights Tribunal Confirms Test For Family Status Discrimination

In Kenworthy v. Brewers Distributor (No. 2), 2016 BCHRT 54 (“Kenworthy”), the BC Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) considered the issue of family status discrimination in the context of childcare obligations. Kenworthy is a helpful update on this tricky topic and is of particular interest due to the various approaches that courts and tribunals across Canada have adopted in defining “family status” obligations in human rights legislation.

Read More +

When Does Inter-Personal Conflict Become a “Significant Work-Related Stressor”?

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 +

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

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 +

Unions Have No Automatic Right to Participate in the Accommodation Process of Union Members

The B.C. Supreme Court has clarified in a judicial review decision that a union does not have an automatic right to participate in and be provided with information related to the process of accommodating a worker due to a protected ground: Telus Communications Inc. v. Telecommunications Workers’ Union, 2015 BCSC 1570.

Read More +

Honesty is the Best Policy, Again – Antunes v. Limen Structures Ltd.

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 +

Ontario Court Affirms “Family Status” Protection in the Workplace

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 +