For some, this decision took a long time to arrive.

The Supreme Court of Canada in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan confirmed once and for all that the right to strike is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This landmark decision strikes down Saskatchewan’s essential services legislation, which prevented a wide range of public sector employees from striking. This decision does not conclude that all essential services legislation that imposes limits on strike action will be unconstitutional; however, it will have an impact on the future of labour relations across Canada. . . . [more]

Drawing the line between privacy and practicality is not always easy, even for the Justices of the Court of Appeal, who divided narrowly on the issue.

Just before Christmas the Ontario Court of Appeal released a split, 3-2, decision in a case that pitted the privacy rights of judgment debtors against the execution rights of judgment creditors.

The Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) had obtained a judgment of just over $26,000 against the defendants. The defendants owned a residential property that RBC wished to have the Sheriff seize and sell so that the bank could collect on its judgment. Since . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada in Crookes v Newton held that the mere linking to a web site that contained defamatory material did not make the linker liable for defamation. Adding content to the link might change that result.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has recently held, however, that offering a link to an email program (e.g. ‘mailto:’) on a web page that contains defamatory material constitutes republication of that material, apparently whether or not anyone used it.

Weaver v Corcoran 2015 BCSC 165 (CanLII)

Here is the main passage on that point:

[261] The invitation to email the

. . . [more]

This morning in Federation of Law Societies of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), the Supreme Court of Canada upheld (with minor adjustments) the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and Canada’s Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, was held defective since it did not adequately protect solicitor-client privilege in its search procedures. Parliament will have to significantly revise the scheme to add more safeguards.

A narrow set of professional duties was held to meet the principle of fundamental justice test, established in the Malmo-Levine test: R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine: . . . [more]

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Act’s age cut-off for loss of earnings benefits does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Ontario’s Divisional Court decided in Gouthro v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal et al.

There are provisions in the Rules of Civil Procedure which provide that if a plaintiff brings a lawsuit in Superior Court and recovers an amount that is within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court ($25,000), it is open to the court to order that the plaintiff shall not recover any of its legal costs of the lawsuit.

The rationale behind these provisions is straightforward. If a litigant fails to recover more than $25,000, then its claim ought to have been brought in the Small Claims Court which provides for a more streamlined, less expensive, procedure. A plaintiff, theoretically, . . . [more]

In Roe v British Columbia Ferry Services Ltd, a British Columbia trial judge made too many assumptions and not enough findings of fact when he decided that an employee’s dishonest conduct was “trifling,” “relatively minor” and not sufficient to justify termination. The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for the employee after finding that the trial judge made a “palpable and overriding error” due to his failure to undertake an objective contextual analysis, as required for cases of alleged just cause.

On December 4, 2014, an Alberta labour arbitrator decided that an employer owed a grievor $5,000 in damages for breach of privacy due to the disclosure of the employee's presumed mental illness during the formal review of a workplace conflict.

Litigation produces winners and losers. Often, the loser feels that the judge got it wrong and appeals the decision accordingly.

In some cases even the winner thinks that it should have received a decision more favourable than it did and that an appeal is an appropriate route to take.

In a recent case, both the winner and the loser of a summary judgment motion thought that the motion judge got it wrong, and both sought leave to appeal.

More surprising than the fact that both sides think the judge got it wrong, is that the Divisional Court denied leave . . . [more]

In Flatt v. Treasury Board (Department of Industry), the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board has rejected a public servant’s complaint that Industry Canada discriminated against her on the basis of family status when it refused to let her work from home full-time while breastfeeding.

n Emslie v Doholoco Holdings Ltd., the Manitoba Human Rights Adjudication Panel concluded that the company's owner sexually harassed an employee and the company was liable as the employer-for an award of $36,000.

In September, 2012 I posted a short piece about a tenant who had been evicted from 6 homes in 7 years who was arrested to face fraud charges.

The Toronto Star has reported that Nina Willis was found guilty after an eight day trial that turned into a “spectacle”.

Is there any question as to whether she will appeal? . . . [more]