Canada’s online legal magazine.

Archive for ‘Case Comment’

Workplace Accident Is Not Enough to Prove Employer Committed General Duty Offence Under OHSA

Following a fatal workplace accident, the Alberta Court of Appeal provided a more comprehensive framework for the actus reus requirement of the general duty provision in Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and clarified that the mere occurrence of a workplace accident does not prove the employer committed a violation.

Fatal workplace accident – Did the employer violate its “general duty” to ensure the health and safety of an employee?

During a “tripping out” procedure on December 20, 2010, at an employer’s drilling rig, an employee suffered a workplace accident and died from blunt cranial trauma and multiple cranial . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Practice of Law, Practice of Law: Practice Management, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Criminal Conviction or Incarceration Does Not Justify Termination

The Administrative Labour Tribunal in Quebec recently held that an employer cannot terminate a worker with a criminal conviction for acts of sexual abuse as it constitutes discrimination based on criminal records. Moreover, the nature of the criminal offence does not automatically justify the dismissal of an employee. . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions, Substantive Law: Legislation

When Does the Limitation Period for a Wrongful Dismissal Claim Start?

In a recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified that the limitation period for a wrongful dismissal claim does not start at the end of employment, but rather as soon as working notice is provided. . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions, Substantive Law: Legislation

When Does the Limitation Period for a Wrongful Dismissal Claim Start?

In a recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified that the limitation period for a wrongful dismissal claim does not start at the end of employment, but rather as soon as working notice is provided. . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions, Substantive Law: Legislation

Former Employer Accountable for Undiscovered Disability Claim

Reversing the trial judge’s decision, on April 19, 2018, the Court of Appeal for Ontario concluded that an employee can still benefit from a former employer’s long-term disability coverage despite discovering the disability while working for a new employer. The exclusionary language did not limit the long-term disability coverage to current employees, and was extended by the Court to apply to undisclosed disability claims that arose during employment.

Was the former employer really accountable to provide LTD coverage even after the employee quit? Here’s what happened: . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Why a Scent-Free Policy Not a Solution in the Detection of Cannabis Impairment

There is a recent article that suggested that implementing a scent-free or fragrance-free environment policy would help employers know if their employee is high at work from cannabis use, and what actions to take when they catch them high at work.

Most people are familiar with smoking dried cannabis in hand-rolled cigarettes, pipes or water pipes-but people can consume cannabis in many forms, including: “vaping”; eaten in cannabis-infused foods called “edibles” (e.g., cooking oils and drinks); applied as oils, ointments, tinctures, cream and concentrates (e.g., butane hash oil, resins and waxes); and of course, ingested as oral pills and oral . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Miscellaneous, Practice of Law, Practice of Law: Practice Management, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions, Substantive Law: Legislation

Employer’s Unilateral Change of Bonus Provisions Unenforceable

The Ontario Superior Court recently awarded 30 months’ notice period and bonus payments in full during that notice period to a long-service employee. The Judge noted that termination without cause in this case resulted in forced resignation as comparable employment was not available for the 62-year-old employee who had devoted 37 years to the company, and was therefore entitled to 30 months’ notice period. Moreover, the altered conditions of employment whereby bonus payments would only be payable if employed on date of payout was struck down as it was not appropriately communicated to affected employees-as the Judge noted that posting . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions, Substantive Law: Legislation

Right to Terminate Group Benefits at 65 on the Road to a Successful Challenge

The number of workers over the age of 65 has risen significantly in recent years. The increasing number of older employees who choose to remain in the workplace, combined with the elimination of mandatory retirement across Canada, has put into question the issue of the termination of benefits after an employee reaches the age of 65.

While most employers routinely terminate benefits at age 65, the changing workforce demographic has created a demand for benefits coverage for older workers. However, providing benefits to employees past the age of 65 can be difficult because insurers either will not provide the coverage, . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Practice of Law, Practice of Law: Practice Management, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions, Substantive Law: Legislation

CanniMed Sues Aurora Cannabis for $725,000,000

2018 began with a bang in the Canadian cannabis industry.

After the markets closed this past Friday, January 12, 2018, CanniMed Therapeutics Inc. (“CanniMed”), announced that it had commenced a lawsuit against Aurora Cannabis Inc. (“Aurora”) and a number of large CanniMed shareholders.

In the announcement, CanniMed indicated that the claim was for $725 million in damages resulting from the defendants’ (alleged) “unlawful actions that have negatively affected the appreciation of the value of common shares of CanniMed and prevented CanniMed from pursuing alternative change of control transactions for the benefit of the CanniMed shareholders.”

While the press release contained . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment