2023 BCSC 196 (CanLII) tells the tale of an injured employee who didn’t agree with the employment outlook he received from British Columbia’s Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC), or with its curtailment of his job search benefits. The court’s position shows how decisions like these can be reasonable, even if the employee remains unconvinced. . . . [more]
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal recently allowed an employee’s discrimination complaint to proceed even though it was filed 18 months after the last instance of discrimination, beyond the one-year limitation period. The Tribunal found that the employee had a good reason to file her claim late, and there was no substantial prejudice from the delay. . . . [more]
Sometimes, when a period of employment comes to an end, the answers to why or how it ended become especially relevant. For example, under employment standards legislation, an employee may seek a payment on termination to which they are disentitled because of the facts leading to the breakdown in the employment relationship. This occurred recently in 2023 BCEST 17 (CanLII), where the British Columbia Employment Standards Tribunal refused the appeal of a worker who sought “length of service” compensation after finding that he quit his job. You can’t have your cake . . . [more]
Employees who enjoy a lot of discretion and autonomy in their jobs may be tempted to submit a false expense claim. If they do, they risk upsetting the relationship of trust that is central to their ongoing employment. When that happens, even if the amount of money at issue is relatively small, the repercussions can be drastic for the employee, like the plaintiff in 2023 BCSC 635. . . . [more]
Preamble
This post is the fourth of a series considering three major issues under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: the impact of how the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has defined rights; the relationship between rights; and the relationship between guarantees of rights and freedoms and section 1 of the Charter.
I focus the discussion of these issues through the lens of section 3, which guarantees the right to vote and to be eligible to sit in the legislature. Following the exploration of the SCC jurisprudence relating to each of the three issues in relation to section . . . [more]
Many employers implemented COVID-19 policies requiring employees to become vaccinated or face negative work-related outcomes like unpaid leaves or suspensions. Apart from that point of commonality, different approaches were taken to employees’ requests for exemptions and those that were made on the basis of religion proved difficult to navigate. In one case, B.C. Rapid Transit Co. v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 7000 (Morzhakov Grievance), [2022] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 114, Arbitrator Randall Noonan overturned the employer’s rejection of one such request because, he said, its process went too far and was . . . [more]
In Moffitt v. TD Canada Trust, 2023 ONCA 349, the Ontario Court of Appeal addresses the test for summary judgment motions. Justice Brown, writing for the Court, confirms that a summary judgment motion brought under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure has the same test regardless of whether a party has elected for a judge alone trial or a jury trial.
In Ontario, the test for whether granting a summary judgment is appropriate is not concerned with who would act as the trier of fact if a trial is required. The focus is on whether a trial . . . [more]
In a recent Alberta ruling, an employer was found to have failed to accommodate an employee’s rare disability when it refused to accept a lesser known medical test. Instead of maintaining a flexible attitude, the employer arbitrarily decided to reject the employee’s medical evidence merely because the test violated its policy. As a result, the employer was found liable for disability discrimination under the Alberta Human Rights Act.
The employer was a public sector health services organization. The employee worked for the employer from 1992 in different positions until . . . [more]
Silence during the accommodation process, strange facts and self-serving evidence in support of a human rights complaint prove to be an unsatisfactory combination of factors for establishing a reasonable prospect of success in proving a complaint at a hearing. Exercising its gatekeeping function in 2023 BCHRT 1, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint that is equally odd (factually) and instructive (legally). . . . [more]
In 2023 CanLII 13643 (CALA), arbitrator Graham J. Clarke examined the question of conflicting medical evidence in an accommodation matter and determined the employer was wrong to have ignored the employee’s evidence while preferring that of its own doctor. The outcome was to send the parties back to the drawing board, illustrating how tricky it can be for the employer to make the right choice when the medical evidence points in opposite directions. . . . [more]
In classic fashion, arbitrator Kim Bernhardt in 2023 CanLII 10437 determined the punishment met the crime after reviewing the case’s mitigating and aggravating factors. A one-day suspension for insubordinate comments seems quite minimal, yet the grievor alleged that progressive discipline should have been applied, resulting in even lesser discipline. As the arbitrator would explain, that’s not how it always works. . . . [more]
In a recent British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruling, an employee’s two co-workers were found to have discriminated against him when they uttered racial slurs during a physical altercation at a staff party. As the discrimination occurred during a work event and was connected to ancestry, place of origin, religion and race, the employee was protected by the British Columbia Human Rights Code. As a result, the employee was entitled to damages, which the two co-workers were liable to pay. . . . [more]