Canada’s online legal magazine.

Archive for ‘Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions’

Deduction of CERB From Wrongful Dismissal Damages

During the pandemic, the federal government introduced several programs to provide financial assistance to those affected by economic lockdowns and business closures. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit program (CERB) provided $2,000 for an initial 4-week period, with an extension to 28-weeks for a maximum of $14,000.

Eligibility for CERB included:

  •  individuals residing in Canada;
  • who were at least 15 years old;
  • who had stopped working or had been working reduced hours due to COVID-19;
  • who did not expect to earn over $1,000 in employment or self-employment income for at least 14 days in a row during a four-week period;
  • who
. . . [more]
Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Two-Part Kickoff for Family Status Discrimination

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

There has been significant debate in courtrooms and arbitration hearings over the years about the threshold point at which a complainant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination by an employer on the ground of family status. In British Columbia, the law stood to be clarified after that province’s Human Rights Tribunal got it wrong concerning two spouses who worked at a mine and sought scheduling accommodations. The Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision in Gibraltar Mines Ltd. v Harvey, 2022 BCSC 385 is sure to be cited or read . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Judicially Reconciling Settler Colonial Occupation

On April 1, 2022, Pope Francis apologized to residential school survivors, after a week of private meetings with delegations from Indigenous people in Canada,

I also feel shame… sorrow and shame for the role that a number of Catholics, particularly those with educational responsibilities, have had in all these things that wounded you, and the abuses you suffered and the lack of respect shown for your identity, your culture and even your spiritual values.

For the deplorable conduct of these members of the Catholic Church, I ask for God’s forgiveness and I want to say to you with all my

. . . [more]
Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Covid Testing Policy Upheld as Reasonable

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

As every workplace is unique, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with COVID-19. While some workplaces have mandated vaccination, others took a slightly toned-down approach. In CKF Inc. and TC, Local 213 (COVID Testing), Re, 2022 CarswellBC 198, a British Columbia arbitrator examined and upheld a policy that required weekly testing for those who refused to be vaccinated.

Background

The employer in this case is in the business of manufacturing single-use food packaging products like egg cartons and foam meat trays that are commonly found in grocery stores. . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Electronic Signatures May Be Superior in Commercial Transactions

Due to social distancing measures during the pandemic, almost all documents during this time were signed digitally, as opposed to traditional (“wet signatures”) methods.

Well before the pandemic, electronic signatures have been considered legally valid. Ontario, Alberta and B.C. have had statutes in place for over two decades recognizing the validity of electronic signatures, based on the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act of Canada (“UECA”) model legislation.

However, there is still some variability between provincial legislation on how electronic signatures are used. Ontario‘s statute allows for these to satisfy any legal requirement, as long as it is reliable for . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Landmark Compensation Award in a British Columbia Discrimination Case

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

In 2019, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal found that Levan Francis was the victim of discrimination on the basis of his race and colour at the hands of his employer, the Ministry of Justice, North Fraser Pre-trial Centre. The damage was extensive: Francis suffered a serious mental illness that prevented him from working in any occupation. In a follow-up decision, the Tribunal determined what remedies were available to Francis. Since the governing principle on remedy is to put someone back in the original position, the fact that almost . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Litigating Science Around COVID-19

Given the profound impact the pandemic has had on society, it’s obviously no surprise that questions around the governmental actions and other responses will continue to appear in our legal system for years.

While courts have taken judicial notice that the virus exists, which is perhaps not that controversial, they have also adopted and followed in many ways governmental messaging around the pandemic. This appears to be justified on an expediency and principled basis, at least early on in the pandemic when the information and evidence was still emerging.

Two years later, there is a greater appetite to challenge widely . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Alberta Law Firm Discriminated Against Employee

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

Hindsight is always 20/20, but in reading the decision Smorhay v Goodfellow Law, 2021 AHRC 170 (CanLII), one wonders how the employer did not foresee serious problems on the horizon. Corinne Smorhay was a legal assistant. She had worked in law offices before but had no construction law experience. Despite this, a headhunter recommended her to Goodfellow Law, a construction law firm that needed a secretary who could hit the ground running. When she was the only applicant who showed up for the interview, she got the . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Practice of Law, Practice of Law: Practice Management, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Privacy Around Mandate Letters

Political scientists yearn for the day when party policy has the most significant weight in democratic elections. Instead, snappy slogans and flash ideas usually are more effective at attracting the attention of the electorate.

Still, when a government is elected, they are required to implement ideas through policy. This is usually done in the form of mandate letters to cabinet ministers, which outlines the objectives they will work to accomplish, and the inherent challenges the minister is facing in this role.

In a free and open democracy, should the public have access to these mandate letters? On one hand, the . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Workplace Fighting: What Happens After the Dust Settles?

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

Thankfully, many employers will never have to deal with the aftermath of a physical confrontation that happens in the workplace. But if a fight occurs, the employer is faced with some unique challenges, both in terms of investigating and in meting out punishment to those involved. The recent Ontario arbitration case, Michael Garron Hospital and SEIU, Local 1 Canada (Khan) Re, 2022 CarswellOnt 795, puts these challenges in context and provides a useful precedent to employers who must deal with this unsavoury situation.

Background

Rayard Khan and Michael . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Public Interest in COVID-19 Discourse

Nothing has been more divisive or controversial in our lifetime than the COVID-19 pandemic, including the appropriate response, treatment, governmental measures, or what is in the public interest.

The discussions around these issues have been robust, and have occurred with family members, friends, and especially online. On some level, these discussions are healthy, and promote better decision-making in a democracy. But with all expression rights, there come limitations, including words that are defamatory.

These exchanges have perhaps been most pointed within the medical community, the body of professionals we have all turned to for expert insight to medical issues around . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

The Court Goes Back to Basics on Workers Compensation

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

Worker’s compensation legislation has existed in Canada for more than 100 years and can be traced to the work of the Ontario lawyer, politician, and judge Sir William Meredith who, in 1913, tabled the Meredith Report that is seen as the harbinger of the system of worker’s compensation across the nation. One of the key foundational concepts is the principle of no-fault compensation, a historical compromise between workers and employers. According to this principle, there is no dispute about responsibility or liability for the accident, and injured workers receive benefits regardless . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

3li_EnFr_Wordmark_W

This project has been made possible in part by the Government of Canada | Ce projet a été rendu possible en partie grâce au gouvernement du Canada