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

Employees who enjoy a lot of discretion and autonomy in their jobs may be tempted to submit a false expense claim. If they do, they risk upsetting the relationship of trust that is central to their ongoing employment. When that happens, even if the amount of money at issue is relatively small, the repercussions can be drastic for the employee, like the plaintiff in 2023 BCSC 635. . . . [more]

Preamble

This post is the fourth 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.

I focus the discussion of these issues through the lens of section 3, which guarantees the right to vote and to be eligible to sit in the legislature. Following the exploration of the SCC jurisprudence relating to each of the three issues in relation to section . . . [more]

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

Many employers implemented COVID-19 policies requiring employees to become vaccinated or face negative work-related outcomes like unpaid leaves or suspensions. Apart from that point of commonality, different approaches were taken to employees’ requests for exemptions and those that were made on the basis of religion proved difficult to navigate. In one case, B.C. Rapid Transit Co. v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 7000 (Morzhakov Grievance), [2022] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 114, Arbitrator Randall Noonan overturned the employer’s rejection of one such request because, he said, its process went too far and was . . . [more]

Preamble

This post is the third 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.

I focus the discussion of these issues through the lens of section 3, which guarantees the right to vote and to be eligible to sit in the legislature. Following the exploration of the SCC jurisprudence relating to each of the three issues in relation to . . . [more]

Written by Lewis Waring, LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

In a recent Alberta ruling, an employer was found to have failed to accommodate an employee’s rare disability when it refused to accept a lesser known medical test. Instead of maintaining a flexible attitude, the employer arbitrarily decided to reject the employee’s medical evidence merely because the test violated its policy. As a result, the employer was found liable for disability discrimination under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Background

The employer was a public sector health services organization. The employee worked for the employer from 1992 in different positions until . . . [more]

Preamble

This post is the second 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.

I focus the discussion of these issues through the lens of section 3, which guarantees the right to vote and to be eligible to sit in the legislature. Following the exploration of the SCC jurisprudence relating to each of the three issues in relation to . . . [more]

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

Silence during the accommodation process, strange facts and self-serving evidence in support of a human rights complaint prove to be an unsatisfactory combination of factors for establishing a reasonable prospect of success in proving a complaint at a hearing. Exercising its gatekeeping function in 2023 BCHRT 1, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint that is equally odd (factually) and instructive (legally). . . . [more]

Preamble

This post is the first 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.

I focus the discussion of these issues through the lens of section 3, which guarantees the right to vote and to be eligible to sit in the legislature. Following the exploration of the SCC jurisprudence relating to each of the three issues in relation to . . . [more]

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

In 2023 CanLII 13643 (CALA), arbitrator Graham J. Clarke examined the question of conflicting medical evidence in an accommodation matter and determined the employer was wrong to have ignored the employee’s evidence while preferring that of its own doctor. The outcome was to send the parties back to the drawing board, illustrating how tricky it can be for the employer to make the right choice when the medical evidence points in opposite directions. . . . [more]

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

In classic fashion, arbitrator Kim Bernhardt in 2023 CanLII 10437 determined the punishment met the crime after reviewing the case’s mitigating and aggravating factors. A one-day suspension for insubordinate comments seems quite minimal, yet the grievor alleged that progressive discipline should have been applied, resulting in even lesser discipline. As the arbitrator would explain, that’s not how it always works. . . . [more]

Lewis Waring, LL.B., Articled Clerk, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In a recent British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruling, an employee’s two co-workers were found to have discriminated against him when they uttered racial slurs during a physical altercation at a staff party. As the discrimination occurred during a work event and was connected to ancestry, place of origin, religion and race, the employee was protected by the British Columbia Human Rights Code. As a result, the employee was entitled to damages, which the two co-workers were liable to pay. . . . [more]

Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In a recent Ontario ruling, an employer was found to have wrongfully dismissed an employee whose role had evolved beyond its characterization in his original employment contract. By attempting to rely upon a contract that no longer applied, the employer deprived the employee of his presumed right to reasonable notice of termination. . . . [more]