A recent Alberta privacy case, P2019-ND-006 (in PDF), deals with a breach of salary information about identifiable individuals under the Personal Information Privacy Act (PIPA). The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Alberta found that “A reasonable person would consider that the identity and salary information could be used to cause the significant harms of hurt, humiliation and embarrassment, particularly if shared with individuals who have a personal or professional relationship with the affected individuals.”
Archive for ‘Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions’
The broad discretion of universities over resolving academic disputes has been clearly stated in Ontario in cases like Jaffer and Aba-Alkhail. The complex nature of such disputes means that the internal dispute resolution mechanisms within universities are usually the primary means to resolve such issues, though not necessarily the final one.
However, where a student’s claim goes beyond student evaluations, structure of the programs, competence of advisors, and other matters that are intrinsically academic, the situation is not necessarily so clear. The Ontario Court of Appeal recently weighed in on this further in Lam v. University of Western Ontario . . . [more]
In a recent Ontario Superior Court case, the unofficial rule of thumb of one month of notice per year of service with an upper limit of about 24 months was set aside when an employee was awarded a 30-month notice period. The Court also held that it would have awarded more, 36 months in fact, if the employee had asked for it.
The Court stated in the decision that,
. . . [more]
 As a general principle, 24 months has been identified as the maximum notice period in most cases.
A Henson trust, named after an Ontario court decision from the 1980s, is an estate planning tool by which property can be held in trust for a disabled beneficiary such that it is not an asset of the beneficiary, thereby preserving and maximizing the beneficiary’s entitlement to government means-tested social programs. It is frequently employed by parents of disabled children.
In S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corp, released 25 January 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada gave full consideration to Henson trusts. It confirmed the Henson trust as an important estate planning tool in Canada.
The appellant S.A. lived in . . . [more]
Tax law is no easy business. There are lots of complicated and seemingly conflicting rules, and tax litigation can come across as quite technical. Perhaps to add some animation to tax litigation proceedings, judges can add some clever wit buried in their decisions.
In 2015, a private corporation earning rental income was eligible for a dividend refund under subsection 129(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), but failed to do so due to health problems of its principal. It applied for relief from the Minister under the discretionary taxpayer relief professions in subsections . . . [more]
The use of surveillance cameras in the workplace in Canada is quite common. Often, surveillance cameras are installed to deter theft, vandalism, assault, harassment and suspected criminal or improper activity. However, many employees question the right of employers to record them in the workplace and state that it is a breach of their privacy. Do employees’ privacy rights compete with employers’ needs to ensure that his or her employees do their job, come in at the right hours, and don’t behave inappropriately?
This case involves a union’s application to exclude video footage from the admissible evidence in a recent grievance . . . [more]
High-stakes litigation often involves the use of experts, who are expected under the Rules of Civil Procedure to provide fair, objective and non-partisan evidence to assist the court to determine issues under dispute. These experts are required to limit their evidence to matters within their expertise, and it’s not uncommon to see experts in a wide range of technological, medial, and other areas.
Typically, the opinion evidence provided by an expert evidence must comply with certain requirements under rule 53.03, such as their area of expertise, qualifications and employment, and a review of the basis for which the opinion is . . . [more]
Rideshare companies like Uber have already completely transformed the transportation industry, but they are not without their detractors. As I first mentioned in 2017, a class action launched against the company, and has recently made its way to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The Superior Court motion decision, summarized on Slaw here, relied on the Arbitration Act, 1991, the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, and case law such as Seidel v. TELUS Communications Inc., Wellman v. TELUS Communications Company, and Douez v. Facebook, Inc., to stay the action in favour of a mandatory . . . [more]
The process of judicial appointments is probably one of the most important ways that the political branch of government affects the judicial branch. In their selection of candidates, a lawyer’s experiences and community involvement certainly should be considered in conjunction with their professional achievements.
The changes to the appointment process, introduced on Oct. 20, 2016, have improved considerably the selection and diversity of these candidates, especially as compared to the track record of the previous government, whose appointments appeared to be primarily based on political patronage and factors related to false estimations of prestige. As a result, 98% of these . . . [more]
The Toronto municipal election earlier this year has attracted nation-wide scrutiny given the changes to council size and invocation of s. 33 in Bill 31. In an election already marred by confusion and uncertainty, there has also been some controversy around the candidates involved. One mayoral candidate, Faith Goldy, who has received a disproportionate amount of attention online, is described by The Globe as “a troubling extremist” and “manipulative monomaniac.” She is generally assumed to reflect the views of the growing “alt-right” across Canada, and as a result, many debate organizers have deliberately excluded her from events. Goldy’s . . . [more]
According to the Ontario Court of Appeal, when the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) charges a worker for “wilfully failing to inform the Board of a material change,” the WSIB must prove a wilful act, and, moreover, that a worker intended to obtain WSIB benefits to which he or she is not entitled to. . . . [more]