A refreshing aspect of Slaw.ca is that professionals from various backgrounds contribute to this content. Outside this space, the vast majority of my scrolling is focused on caselaw, commentary, and news related to immigration laws and policies. Extremely limited, I admit. Slaw.ca exposes me (and you, I suppose, as another reader) to think about areas of law outside my silo, possibly to our benefit.

Would it be an overstatement to assert that silo thinking has undermined our advocacy? Have our resources & energy become so focused within our specialized little areas of expertise that we have neglected developments in other . . . [more]

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of Canada recently decided in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner) that the public is not entitled to see the mandate letters that the Premier of Ontario issued to his cabinet ministers in 2018. The SCC disagreed with the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC), the unanimous Ontario Divisional Court and the majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, all of whom concluded that the cabinet records exemption under the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) did not apply to the letters.

In this post, I do . . . [more]

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

In 2023 CanLII 111663 (BC LA), a British Columbia successive employer learned that it couldn’t take over with a totally clean slate. It ran into a roadblock when it tried to implement its plan to fire some incapacitated workers who were unlikely to ever return. While legal, perhaps, it ran up against the principle of estoppel, making it unfair to proceed as it wished. The case is a cautionary tale to unionized employers looking to change course on important issues. . . . [more]

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

A decision of the Ontario Grievance Settlement Board, 2023 CanLII 115148 (ON GSB), confirms that dishonesty, attempts to shift blame and a lack of remorse are not a winning combination of factors for an employee seeking to overturn a disciplinary measure. In this case, the employee went AWOL for personal reasons, giving the employer a clear path to just cause for imposing discipline. . . . [more]

I was intrigued by the Ontario Court of Appeal’s “Supplementary Reasons” in Working Families Coalition (Canada) Inc.v. Ontario (Attorney General) (“Supplementary Reasons”), recently reported in the December 15, 2023 Ontario Reports.

On March 6, 2023, the Court of Appeal released its decision in the Working Families Coalition’s (“The Coalition”) challenge to the third party spending limits added to the Elections Finances Act (“EFA”). (I wrote a six post series on section 3 and other issues under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, using the Superior Court of Justice decisions (here and here) and the . . . [more]

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

In September, 2023, the Chair of the Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission decided that a female employee was indeed sexually harassed while she was employed with the employer. Therefore, she was awarded $15,000 in general damages for mental anguish, humiliation, affront to dignity and/or emotional injury. Additionally, the Panel ordered the employer to create an anti-harassment policy (accepting direction from the Panel), and to pay for sexual harassment training for all staff members in a form that was satisfactory to the Human Rights Commission. . . . [more]

Written by Daniel Standing, LL.B., content editor, First Reference Inc.

You only get one shot. One chance. A single try. No matter how you say it, in 2023 HRTO 1610 (CanLII), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario delivered this message to a would-be complainant, dismissing his claim. . . . [more]

In Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned part of the groundbreaking decision of Justice Mandhane in establishing the tort of family violence. Justice Benotto writing for the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that existing torts adequately address the issue of damages for family harm and that Parliament has not shown an intention to create a new cause of action.

When amending the Divorce Act, Parliament could have revised the legislation to create a new tort, but they did not. Instead Parliament made provisions for fines and contempt orders to address harm suffered . . . [more]

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

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice just dismissed two actions regarding claims under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. The Court confirmed the decision of the Vice-Chair of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, and similarly concluded that D lost her right of action under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. Additionally, D’s family member also lost her right of action under the Family Law Act, as this claim was derivative in nature and dependent on D’s claim. The Court made a strong comment about . . . [more]

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

Under Ontario’s occupational health and safety legislation’s reprisal provisions, the employer in 2023 CanLII 73671 was able to show that its actions weren’t motivated by any ill-will toward the employee for filing a harassment complaint against her manager. The case offers a reminder to employers of the value of maintaining evidence that can show a chronology of key events. What on its face may appear to be nefarious retaliation may actually be the outcome of a planned organizational decision that was made for a valid business reason. . . . [more]

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

On September 29, 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal decided that Google’s search engine service is subject to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Both Laskin J.A. and Gleason J.A. rejected all of Google’s arguments and swiftly dismissed Google’s appeal. However, there was a dissent in this case-Webb J.A. would have allowed the appeal. . . . [more]

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

In August 2023, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta dismissed an employee’s claim of constructive dismissal because it turned out that, on the evidence presented, the claim would not succeed at trial and was without merit. More specifically, the employee could not show that his employment contract was unilaterally changed to his detriment, or that the employer’s conduct demonstrated that it no longer intended to be bound by the terms of the employment contract (including the company Code of Conduct). Rather, the employee’s accusations of mistreatment . . . [more]