INTRODUCTION

In the midst of writing this post yesterday, January 6th, I thought back to that day in 2021 when Donald Trump attempted a coup in the United States to seize the presidency despite having lost the 2020 election. This year’s certification of the 2024 election involved no such threat to democracy only because Trump won the election. But it may be because I have the concept of “coup” on my mind that I am tempted to describe West Whitby Landowners Group Inc. v. Elexicon Energy Inc. (Ont. CA) (“West Whitby”) as a “judicial coup”, albeit a coup somewhat more . . . [more]

In 2022, Justice Mandhane introduced the tort of family violence to address the injuries committed during the course of a marriage. A year later, in 2023, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned this new tort in the decision Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476. This matter is now being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the article “’Weaponizing’ The Tort of Family Violence? Myths, Stereotypes, Lawyers’ Ethics and Access to Justice”, Deanne Sowter and Jennifer Koshan, argue that recognizing the tort of family violence is an important step towards compensating the harms of intimate partner . . . [more]

Written by Christina-Catenacci, BA, LL.B., LLM, PhD Editor, First Reference Inc.

In August 2024, a New Brunswick labour arbitrator denied the union’s grievance that argued that an employee should have been awarded a job. The union took issue with the employer’s job requirement to have 1,000 hours of experience and stated that it was unreasonable. The arbitrator agreed with the employer that the employer was allowed to stipulate that job applicants for the position of truck driver had 1,000 hours of experience. . . . [more]

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

This case reads like a cautionary tale for employers. In 2024 O.H.R.T.D. No. 862, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal exposed the danger of adopting an inflexible approach to an employee’s challenging caregiving role at home. In the end, significant damages were awarded for the failure to accommodate and for reprisal. Other employers can avoid the same fate by understanding the rights and obligations at play in this context. . . . [more]

Whether a restrictive covenant, like a non-compete clause, is enforceable depends on the context. In Dr. C. Sims Dentistry Professional Corporation v. Cooke, 2024 ONCA 388, Justice van Rensburg of the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision to enforce the restrictive covenants placed on a dentist after he sold his practice. 

In her reasons, Justice van Rensburg notes that courts will give more scrutiny to the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant in the employment context. Conversely, when looking at restrictive covenants in the context of a sale of a business, courts will apply the presumption . . . [more]

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

It’s a basic principle that a party needs to know the case being alleged against it to fairly respond to it. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered a decision in 2024 ONSC 2948 where an employment relationship went bad, resulting in a lawsuit. The employer cried foul over the information it received in response to its demand for particulars and brought a motion asking the court to order them. The court disagreed, shedding light on the extent of information a respondent is entitled to receive before examination for discovery. . . . [more]

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

The Alberta grievance arbitration decision in 2024 CanLII 38826 (AB GAA) draws a distinction between contracting out and contracting in. The grievance concerned a company’s decision to fill its Tank Farm Project Operator position at its refinery, involving issuing permits for project work, isolations, expansions and tank cleaning. The position typically was filled by a bargaining unit member to promote individual development within the unit. . . . [more]

Written by Christina Catenaci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, Content Editor, published by First Reference Inc.,

In April 2024, the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board confirmed the decision of the Director of Employment Standards that an elected municipal councillor with a local government governed by the Local Governance Act was not an employee. He claimed that his six-month suspension was a violation of the Employment Standards Act and that he was owed damages. The Board concluded that the councillor did not meet the definition of “employee.” Therefore, the Board dismissed the councillor’s claim. . . . [more]

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

Employers are no stranger to various forms of litigation like grievances, lawsuits and human rights complaints. Sometimes, these complaints proceed to a full hearing and decision, but not unfrequently, matters are settled by the parties without the need for a hearing. Usually, these settlements require the parties to keep the details confidential and not make any disparaging statements about the other party. A 2023 decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, HRTO 1138 (CanLII) illustrates a remedy that might be open to the employer if the employee breaches these . . . [more]

Written by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, Content Editor, First Reference Inc.

In February 2024, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador certified a privacy class action. The representative plaintiffs, on behalf of 260 individuals (first 240 individuals, and second 20 individuals), alleged that their privacy was violated when an employee of the defendant employer (a health authority) accessed the private information of these individuals that was outside the scope of their employment. The employer became aware of the first and second alleged breaches in 2020 and 2021, respectively. The main claim against the employer was that there . . . [more]

INTRODUCTION

Webber Academy (or “the school”), a private educational institution in Alberta, defined itself as non-denominational: it did not engage in any overt religious practice (with one possible and qualified exception). Yet, after two Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) decisions, two Queen’s Bench (as it then was) (QB) judgements, two Court of Appeal (CA) rulings and two denial of leaves to appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), it was held to have discriminated without justification against two Muslim students whom it prohibited from engaging, on school property, in overt prayers. How did this happen? And what does it . . . [more]