Summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book. Every Sunday we present a precis of the latest summaries, a fuller version of which can be found on MLB-Slaw Selected Case Summaries at cases.slaw.ca.
This week’s summaries concern:
Losses attributable to breach of employment contract / Limitations periods and adding parties / Workers’ compensation and medical marijuana:
Waterman v. IBM Canada Ltd. 2013 SCC 70
Contracts – Remedies for breach – Damages – Extent of liability – Losses attributable to breach
An employer dismissed an employee. The employee’s fully paid up pension was triggered by the dismissal. The employee sued for wrongful dismissal. At issue included whether the pension benefits paid to the employee after his dismissal should be deducted from his award. The matter was determined by way of summary trial.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at  B.C.T.C. Uned. 376, . . .
Sweeney-Cunningham v. IBG Canada Ltd. 2013 NSSC 415
Practice – Parties – Adding or substituting parties – General principles – Application of limitation periods
The plaintiffs began construction of a residence in 1998. In September 2002, the plaintiffs sued the defendant (IBG), who designed, supplied and installed an atrium skylight in 2000, over concerns about water infiltration and noises from the glass panels. In 2013, the plaintiffs moved to amend their pleadings to name a second defendant (AVG), the engineers who designed the skylight’s structural framing system. AVG argued . . .
Heilman v. Workers’ Compensation Board (Sask.) 2013 SKQB 403
Workers’ Compensation – Compensation – General – Medical aid or treatment or other health related expenses – medical marijuana
Heilman suffered from chronic back pain and muscle spasms as a result of work related injuries. He was entitled to compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act. On the recommendation of his physician, he commenced using medical marijuana for pain. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied Heilman reimbursement for the cost of his medical marijuana. Heilman applied for judicial review of that decision. . . .