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

An apology can be the difference-maker pointing toward rehabilitative potential, but in the worst misconduct cases, it’ll take more than an a simple mea culpa for an employee to get back their foot back in the door for another chance. Take the recent case of 2023 CanLII 77866 (ON LA), for example. Although the supervisor in that case sought reinstatement and apologized, his actions and other things he said told the opposite story. There are several nuggets of wisdom for employers in this case that touch on the value . . . [more]

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

If there’s a main lesson in 2022 BCHRT 129 (CanLII), it’s to use a person’s name instead of animals and colours when referring to them. The reason? When racial slurs are issued at work, the buck stops with the employer, who could find itself vicariously liable along with the perpetrator employee for discriminatory practices The case also presents a best practice for employers who may be able to limit their liability with a rapid and effective investigation. . . . [more]

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

When someone is hired for a particular job, but their duties don’t totally align with what the job was to entail, disputes can arise. One way trouble can manifest itself is on the pay stub, like in 2023 BCEST 51. There, a worker was hired as a construction project manager but ended up working mainly as a labourer, including long hours of overtime. Under British Columbia Employment Standards Act, he was entitled to overtime pay only if he met the definition of employee; those characterized as managers were excluded, . . . [more]

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

2023 ONSC 2740 (CanLII) is a defamation case of epic proportions, both for the scope and turpitude of the statements made and in the number of victims. It’s also a strange case, in that the defendant only knew one of the 53 plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs, based all over North America, were mostly strangers to each other. . . . [more]

A recent Ontario Superior Court decision shows some of the complexities employers face when dealing with Employment Standards Act (ESA) entitlements versus common law. In this case, the employee was seeking damages from the successor employer for an alleged wrongful dismissal from her continued employment. . . . [more]

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

In 2023 ONCA 364, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has written the latest chapter in an ongoing legal saga about whether the ground of discrimination of “citizenship” is distinct from the concept of “permanent residence.” In the jurisprudential sense though, it is a first chapter, since this is the first time the interpretation of discrimination in employment on the basis of citizenship has come before the Court. . . . [more]

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

Don’t steal. Don’t steal. Don’t steal. It’s a short but super-important mantra that every employee with access to their employer’s money (and those who don’t) should live by. 2023 BCSC 892 (CanLII) illustrates the anti-theft message in a hyperbolic way. To quickly illustrate: the opening three sentences of this article were 882 reminders short for the employee in this case. It seems she was a compulsive thief over her six-year tenure, to the tune of over $1.9 million. It’s hard to say if the defendant will ever see the money it’s . . . [more]

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

From fried chicken to money scams, 2023 NSLB 76 (CanLII) has it all. Though it has some unusual components, the case of wrongful dismissal provides employers with good advice about choosing a penalty that fits an employee’s “crime,” and it illustrates how critical it is to fully investigate alleged wrongdoing before terminating someone’s employment. . . . [more]

An Ontario arbitrator recently ruled that a manager breached safety rules when he grabbed an employee he believed was being insubordinate. As a result, the employer was ordered to pay the employee $3,000 in damages for the breaches. . . . [more]

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

2023 BCSC 196 (CanLII) tells the tale of an injured employee who didn’t agree with the employment outlook he received from British Columbia’s Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC), or with its curtailment of his job search benefits. The court’s position shows how decisions like these can be reasonable, even if the employee remains unconvinced. . . . [more]

Preamble

This post is the sixth of a series considering three major issues under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: the impact of how the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has defined rights; the relationship between rights; and the relationship between guarantees of rights and freedoms and section 1 of the Charter. . . . [more]

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal recently allowed an employee’s discrimination complaint to proceed even though it was filed 18 months after the last instance of discrimination, beyond the one-year limitation period. The Tribunal found that the employee had a good reason to file her claim late, and there was no substantial prejudice from the delay. . . . [more]