By Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Studen-at-Law, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In Battiston v Microsoft Canada Inc (“Microsoft”), an employee was wrongfully dismissed because his employer had failed to bring a harsh termination clause to his attention. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in Microsoft resulted from a combination of the fact that the clause was relatively harsh as well as the fact that the employer had buried the clause deep within his employment contract and failed to sufficiently notify the employee of its contents.

The employer, in this case, was Microsoft Canada Inc, a subsidiary of Microsoft Corp, a global . . . [more]

By Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

In a recent decision under the British Columbia, under the Workers Compensation Act, an investigations legal officer dismissed a worker’s prohibited action complaint. The worker decided not to report to work as a bartender out of concern of contracting COVID-19. The case, reported here, examines the sufficiency of evidence required to prove a prima facie complaint. In dismissing the case, the WorkSafeBC officer clarifies the employee’s duty to be physically present at the workplace while his or her claim of unsafe working conditions is dealt with under the established procedure. . . . [more]

In my November 3rd Slaw post on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Fraser, I considered the division on the Court relating to the interpretation of section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority decision, written by Abella J., emphasized a broad interpretation, stressing the significance of adverse effects discrimination and the goal of substantive equality. In their dissent, Brown and Rowe JJ. applied a narrower interpretation, as did Côté J. in her separate dissent. Now we have Ontario (Attorney General) v. G, which not only reminds us of the cleft in . . . [more]

COVID-19 has delayed many civil jury trials, creating concerns of prejudice. In the recent decision of Saadi v. Silva, 2020 ONSC 6700, the plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury after the trial was adjourned.

In October, a jury was selected for the Saadi v Silva matter. However, after jury selection, Premier Ford announced that Toronto would return to a modified Stage 2. As part of this return, in-person trials were to continue at the discretion of the trial judge. Since in this case, no evidence had been called and no opening statements were made, the jury . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28 provides a sweeping overview of the law of adverse effect discrimination. This decision specifically targets the alleged discriminatory effect of the RCMP’s policy not to allow those who temporarily reduce their working hours under a job-sharing agreement to “buy back” these periods of reduced working hours for the purposes of their pension. In contrast, those who experienced gaps in their record of service by reason of suspension or spending time on unpaid leave did have the opportunity to buy back pensionable service time. After . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General) (“Fraser”) illustrates the fissures on the Court in the judges’ approaches to equality undersection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although there are also other factors explaining the differences in the majority and dissenting opinions, here I discuss three that are somewhat distinct from the facts of the case: the nature of “equality” under section 15(1); the interrelationship between the law and the social and economic context; and the role of the courts. . . . [more]

“Peremptory challenges, by enabling each side to exclude those jurors it believes will be most partial toward the other side, are a means of eliminat[ing] extremes of partiality on both sides… assuring the selection of a qualified and unbiased jury.” – Justice Scalia in Holland v Illinois.

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in the Pardeep Singh Chouhan case about the significance of peremptory challenges in jury selection. “Bill-C-75 — An Act to Amend the Criminal Code — came into effect on Sept. 19, 2019. The legislation modified the jury selection procedure under the Criminal Code by . . . [more]

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

The 2019 British Columbia labour arbitration decision regarding BC Hydro and Power Authority and IBEW, Local 258 (Vanegas), Re (2019 CarswellBC 4126), considered the case where a worker with a history of poor behaviour had an outburst in a fact-finding meeting. This culminating incident led to his dismissal. The arbitrator’s decision demonstrates the traditional analysis that takes place in disciplinary cases with a consideration for various aggravating and mitigating factors. In this case, despite the worker’s poor record and lack of remorse, several compelling mitigating factors convinced the arbitrator to substitute . . . [more]

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

In a previous First Reference article I wrote on our news service HRinfodesk, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in which a successor employer was held liable for a 20-month notice period was written about because of the legislative presumption of continued employment in these circumstances. Readers may refer to that article for an overview of the key facts. Since then, the case was appealed and decided by the Ontario Court of Appeal. In rendering its decision, the court analyzed the common law approach to the calculation of reasonable notice, concluding . . . [more]

By Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Student-at-law, Editor, First Reference

In Underhill v Shell Canada Limited, 2020 ABQB 341, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta decided that a senior employee had been wrongfully dismissed after she became tangled up in a subordinate’s attempt to bid on a project independently of the employer.

The employer’s reason for the senior employee’s dismissal had been that she had engaged in misconduct in her handling of the subordinate’s bid attempt. However, the court found that her behaviour was not serious enough to merit her dismissal for cause. Instead, the employer should have responded to . . . [more]

In my last Slaw post, I discussed Morgan J.’s decision in Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Attorney General of Ontario (CCLA v. AG Ont.) to grant standing to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to challenge the government’s requirement that gas station operators post a sticker on each gas pump. The standing decision stands for two major points: the CCLA’s expertise did not have to relate to the selling of gas or regulations governing it, but it was sufficient that it related to constitutional issues; and it had shown its interest by identifying its concerns to the government . . . [more]

Lewis Waring, Paralegal and Student-at-Law, Editor, First Reference Inc.

A recent decision from Ontario’s Divisional Court illustrates an important point about the concept of notice in Ontario employment contracts. This point concerns the relation between the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) and Ontario common law. This important point is that employees are, by default, entitled to common law reasonable notice. Common law reasonable notice is roughly equivalent to one month of compensation for each year of employment. In comparison, minimum notice entitlements under the ESA are limited to one week per year of employment.

Employers who wish to prevent their . . . [more]