Canada’s online legal magazine.

Archive for ‘Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions’

University Accommodations for Admissions

A post-secondary education, for most Canadians, is a gateway and a pre-requisite to a better future. Additional education is especially important during difficult economic times, in particular after the loss of a job.

In 2011, Statistics Canada concluded a long-term impact study on post-secondary education, concluding that those who obtained this education found a $7,000 increase in annual salary. This held true even for those who lost their jobs due to the 2008 recession, for most of the participants involved.

Who gets into these education institutions is therefore a considerable factor into social mobility. At the same time, educational institutions . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Defining Essential Travel During the Pandemic

Like most countries around the world, Canada introduced early travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These restrictions are necessary to limit the spread of the virus, and become increasingly important as new strains are being identified and also being brought into Canada.

In March 2020, the Canadian government began imposing restrictions on travel, initially to allow for citizens, permanent residents, international students on a valid study permit, transiting passengers, and temporary foreign workers, to enter the country.

By May 2020, foreigners who were exempt from the travel restrictions had to demonstrate that the purpose was for an essential reason. At . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions, Substantive Law: Legislation

New Privacy Concerns With Deep Nudes

In the back pages of comic books, there was often a curious advertisement. One which purported to sell x-ray glasses, which would allow the user to see through things.

Although first patented in 1906, these novelty items simply created an optical illusion and involved no x-rays at all. This didn’t prevent many young readers from purchasing, with the intent of being up to no good. Roger Luckhurst explains in “X-Ray Specs,”

As anyone who spent a dollar (plus postage and packing) on mail order X-Ray Specs came bitterly to learn, Röntgen’s x rays were not involved in

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

Employee Wins Historic Amount of Damages for Sexual Harassment and Workplace Discrimination

by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Law Student, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In NK v Botuik (“Botuik”), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) awarded a former employee $170,000.00 for sexual harassment and gender discrimination, the second-highest amount of damages ever awarded in Ontario. The employer, in this case, Alan Stewart Homes Limited, owned and operated a number of group homes that served individuals with significant disabilities. Tenants at the employer’s group homes were disabled such that they were unable to live independently and were also incapable of caring for themselves in relation to everyday activities. The employee worked at one of . . . [more]

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

Callow, Fraser and G: Perspectives on the Role of Law and of the Courts

Three recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions illustrate the very different perspectives or philosophies the judges bring to their consideration of the cases before them. The most recent, CM Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, dealt with the duty of honest performance in contract law, while the other two were concerned with equality issues: Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), which considered whether the RCMP pension plan discriminated against members (primarily women) who shared jobs, and Ontario (Attorney General) v. G, involving the different treatment of persons found guilty of a sexual offence and those who had committed a sexual . . . [more]

Posted in: Case Comment, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Mandatory COVID Testing Upheld in Retirement Home

The rights and obligations of workers and employers in the pandemic continue to raise new and novel issues. While many businesses encourage or require their staff to work from home, there are plenty of industries which still require work in-person, especially in deemed essential services (which differ based on jurisdiction).

A particularly challenging area has been long-term care and retirement homes, where several outbreaks have been observed across the country. Not only do these facilities have especially vulnerable residents, but they are often busy and understaffed relative to the work involved and the needs of the facility. Employers continue to . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions

Tribunal Finds No Link Between Disability and Dismissal

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

Neil Patzwald was an engineer who worked at FMC Corporation from March 2011 to September 2013. His short tenure was marked by multiple lengthy absences for medical reasons, disagreements with his superiors about his abilities and suitability for his position-culminating in an acrimonious end to the employment relationship. Since it became apparent the employee had a disability, the case became centered on the employer’s duty to accommodate Mr. Patzwald. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal determined that the company did not discriminate against Mr. Patzwald on the basis of disability contrary . . . [more]

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

Hidden Harsh Termination Clause Voids Contract

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]

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

Cheifetz, Apportionment of Fault (1981) – PDF Available

Apportionment of Fault In Tort (1981) – David Cheifetz

An unrestricted PDF of Cheifetz, Apportionment of Fault in Tort is now available. The text has been out of print for about 2 decades.

The “price”, for Canadian purchasers, will be a donation of CDN $20 to either the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children or the Vancouver Children’s Hospital. Purchasers from other countries should chose a suitable children’s hospital or equivalent in their jurisdictions.

If you want the PDF: Send a request to me at dcheifetz21@gmail.com with a copy of the donation confirmation and the email address to which you want . . . [more]

Posted in: Announcements, Legal Information, Legal Information: Libraries & Research, Miscellaneous, Practice of Law, Practice of Law: Practice Management, Substantive Law, Substantive Law: Judicial Decisions, Substantive Law: Legislation

British Columbia Worker’s Right to Refuse Work Denied

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]

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

Rift on the Supreme Court Bench? Cont’d (Fraser and G)

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]

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

Motivations Irrelevant for Determining the Public Interest

Following the Court’s decisions in Pointes/Platnick, anti-SLAPP motions continue to be brought in defamation actions. These decisions will continue to build and refine test created by the Court, and how it can be applied. One particular aspect is determining what exactly is in the public interest for the purpose of s. 137.1(4)(b), which is the main focus of analysis after the Court’s decision. A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Sokoloff v. Tru-Path Occupational Therapy Services Ltd. helps expound on this issue. The action emerged from a dispute between a well-known lawyer in Toronto, and a the President . . . [more]

Posted in: 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