Canada’s online legal magazine.

Archive for ‘Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions’

Privacy Around Mandate Letters

Political scientists yearn for the day when party policy has the most significant weight in democratic elections. Instead, snappy slogans and flash ideas usually are more effective at attracting the attention of the electorate.

Still, when a government is elected, they are required to implement ideas through policy. This is usually done in the form of mandate letters to cabinet ministers, which outlines the objectives they will work to accomplish, and the inherent challenges the minister is facing in this role.

In a free and open democracy, should the public have access to these mandate letters? On one hand, the . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Workplace Fighting: What Happens After the Dust Settles?

Written by Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, published by First Reference Inc.

Thankfully, many employers will never have to deal with the aftermath of a physical confrontation that happens in the workplace. But if a fight occurs, the employer is faced with some unique challenges, both in terms of investigating and in meting out punishment to those involved. The recent Ontario arbitration case, Michael Garron Hospital and SEIU, Local 1 Canada (Khan) Re, 2022 CarswellOnt 795, puts these challenges in context and provides a useful precedent to employers who must deal with this unsavoury situation.

Background

Rayard Khan and Michael . . . [more]

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

Public Interest in COVID-19 Discourse

Nothing has been more divisive or controversial in our lifetime than the COVID-19 pandemic, including the appropriate response, treatment, governmental measures, or what is in the public interest.

The discussions around these issues have been robust, and have occurred with family members, friends, and especially online. On some level, these discussions are healthy, and promote better decision-making in a democracy. But with all expression rights, there come limitations, including words that are defamatory.

These exchanges have perhaps been most pointed within the medical community, the body of professionals we have all turned to for expert insight to medical issues around . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

The Court Goes Back to Basics on Workers Compensation

Written by Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

Worker’s compensation legislation has existed in Canada for more than 100 years and can be traced to the work of the Ontario lawyer, politician, and judge Sir William Meredith who, in 1913, tabled the Meredith Report that is seen as the harbinger of the system of worker’s compensation across the nation. One of the key foundational concepts is the principle of no-fault compensation, a historical compromise between workers and employers. According to this principle, there is no dispute about responsibility or liability for the accident, and injured workers receive benefits regardless . . . [more]

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

Employer Fulfills Duty to Accommodate Despite Resignation

Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Student-at-Law (3rd year), Editor, First Reference Inc.

In Benson v Central Health Authority, an employer fulfilled its duty to accommodate despite the negotiated resignation of its employee with a disability. Although the employee’s disability made continued employment impossible, the employer’s reliance upon a well-crafted human rights policy allowed it to fulfill its duty regardless. The employer fulfilled its duty to accommodate ultimately by responding to its employee’s request for accommodation systematically and fairly. . . . [more]

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

Retrospective Enforcement of Non-Competition Clauses

Running a business is tough, but it’s even tougher with competition. One of the worst kinds of competition can come from a former employee.

Some employers have tried to limit this risk through the use of what is called a non-competition clause, a provision in an employment agreement that bars a former employee from running a business in competition with their former employer.

The common law has generally disliked the use of non-competition clauses, and as far bas as 1894, the House of Lords stated in Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd,

The public have an

. . . [more]
Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

A Property Manager as an Agent

The greatest strain on the justice system during the pandemic is arguably on housing claims, given the cascade effects that unemployment and financial instability has had on tenancies.

Without a constitutional basis for undue delays in this area like in criminal law, some of these matters have been languishing even longer than usual.

One of the long-standing debates in this area of law has been whether a property manager can act as an agent on behalf of a landlord. This has become particularly important in Ontario since 2008, when paralegals became regulated and licensed by the law society.

The Law . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Accommodation: The Employer Cannot Dance Alone

Written by Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

The process of accommodating an employee with a disability can be a long one that is fraught with possible hurdles along the way. While the employer makes the ultimate decision about what a reasonable accommodation consists of, the union and employee have roles to play, as well. Primary among the employee’s responsibilities is the sharing of relevant medical information with the employer. When communication breaks down and the employer is left without the information it needs to explore possible solutions, arbitrators will take a hard look at the employee’s contribution. If, . . . [more]

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

Procedural Duty to Accommodate Prohibits Assumptions

Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Student at Law (last year), Editor at First Reference

In Turnbull v Edmonton Pipe Trades Educational Fund o/a Alberta Pipe Trade College (“Turnbull”), an employer discriminated against its employee in violation of the Alberta Human Rights Act when it dismissed her one day after learning of her high-risk pregnancy. By failing to investigate whether the employee’s condition could be accommodated, the employer failed to implement its procedural duty to accommodate and paid the employee $35,000 in damages to dignity and lost wages.

Background

The employer, an Alberta technical college, employed the employee for a period . . . [more]

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

Disclosure of Status During Vaccine Mandates

As the many COVID-19 employment law cases continue to work their way through the courts, there is an increasing number of decisions emerging in the unionized context.

A recent arbitral award by Arbitrator Jesin in Teamsters Local Union 847 v Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment looked at the issue of vaccination disclosure, and the reasonableness of it in context of a mandatory vaccination mandate by the employer.

The unionized employee worked in a sporting and events environment that required close contact with other parties, including other employees. The employer implemented a mandatory vaccination policy after the provincial government in Ontario . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Judicial Notice of COVID-19

There is often far too much in dispute in litigation. Counsel are often encouraged for this reason to formulate agreed upon facts, narrow the issues, and focus the dispute as much as they can.

Courts also assist with this process. One of the mechanisms for doing so is judicial notice, which was defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Find as follows,

48 In this case, the appellant relies heavily on proof by judicial notice. Judicial notice dispenses with the need for proof of facts that are clearly uncontroversial or beyond reasonable dispute. Facts judicially noticed are

. . . [more]
Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

The Divisional Court’s Decision in Ontario Teacher Candidates’ Council

INTRODUCTION

In its December 2021 decision in Ontario Teacher Candidates’ Council v. The Queen, the Divisional Court held that the standardized Mathematics Proficiency Test (“MPT”) the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) had developed and the Ontario government had implemented for prospective teachers was unconstitutional because it disadvantaged Black and Indigenous candidates.

As a remedy, the Court allowed all candidates who had otherwise satisfied teacher qualification requirements to enter the profession. . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Education & Training, Justice Issues, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions