Resources

  • Drafting Employment Contracts: Avoiding Surprise and Liability

    February 2015

    by Ryan Copeland

    If drafted properly, employment agreements can go a long way towards mitigating potential employer liability upon termination. However, if contracts are drafted poorly, or not drafted at all, employers may be left with nothing more than a false sense of security.

    Read More +

  • Being Clear about Contractual Rights and Obligations Benefits Employers

    October 2015

    by Thomas A. Roper K.C.Sarah Chamberlain (Dickson)

    A recent case out of Ontario demonstrates the importance of incorporating precise, unequivocal terms in an employment contract. In Kielb v. National Money Mart Co., 2015 ONSC 3790, the defendant employer successfully relied on clear contractual language in order to exclude the payment of a bonus at the time of termination of employment.

    Read More +

  • Let’s Go Find the Wrong Person – The Costs of Terminating a Recruited Employee

    January 2015

    by Jennifer Hogan

    In a recent decision, Rodgers v. CEVA, 2014 ONSC 6583, an Ontario employer paid a high price for terminating a senior employee who had been recruited with an attractive job offer.

    Read More +

  • “Physical Disability” Defined – A Critical Threshold Question

    January 2015

    by Michael Wagner

    Human rights statutes across Canada prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of, among other things, “physical disability”. Sometimes it is clear that an employee is physically disabled, and entitled to statutory protection. However, there are other times when it is unclear if an employee’s medical circumstances fit the definition.

    Read More +

  • Establishing Undue Hardship Is Possible: Wilcox v. University of British Columbia and others, 2014 BCHRT 228

    December 2014

    by Jennifer Devins

    A recent decision of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Wilcox v. University of British Columbia and others, 2014 BCHRT 228, demonstrates that undue hardship is not an impossible threshold to meet, even for a large and diverse employer such as a university.

    Read More +

  • Do You Speak My Language? Language Proficiency as a Potentially Unforeseen Human Rights Risk

    December 2014

    by Gavin Marshall

    Many employers which have business operations that require a high and proficient level of communication struggle with the English language abilities of their employees.

    Read More +

  • Expensive Secret Telling: When Damages May Be Available for Breach of a Confidentiality Clause in a Settlement Agreement

    November 2014

    by Sandra Guarascio

    Employers often enter into settlements in order to avoid litigation. Sometimes, the confidentiality of the settlement is crucially important to the employer. While simple confidentiality clauses are often included in settlement terms and coupled with enforcement mechanisms (what happens if a breach occurs), it is uncommon to see cases that address..

    Read More +

  • Non-Competition Provision Results in Increased Notice Period

    November 2014

    by James D. Kondopulos

    In the recent case of Ostrow v. Abacus Management Corporation Mergers and Acquisitions, 2014 BCSC 938, the B.C. Supreme Court followed an approach taken in a small handful of cases (predominantly out of Ontario but including an appellate case out of B.C.) and confirmed….

    Read More +

  • Equal, not Better, Treatment: Accommodating Employees with Disabilities

    November 2014

    by Michael R. Kilgallin

    In Jardine v. Costco Wholesale Canada, 2014 BCHRT 214, the employer was able to accommodate an employee, while holding its ground on certain requests from the employee.

     

     

    Read More +

  • B.C. Employers Need a “Reasonable Basis” to Conduct Employee Surveillance: Unifor, Local 433 v. Crown Packaging Ltd. (Giesbrecht Grievance), 2014 B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 43 (Dorsey)

    November 2014

    by Danielle Scorda

    Unifor, Local 433 v. Crown Packaging Ltd. (Giesbrecht Grievance), [2014] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 43 (Dorsey) is a recent arbitral decision considering the admissibility of surveillance evidence in British Columbia.

    Read More +

  • ' '