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

In Thoma v Schaefer Elevator Components Inc., 2019 BCSC 100 (CanLII), the British Columbia Supreme Court re-affirms the need for employers to establish and communicate clear and explicit rules when discretionary bonuses form part of an organization’s compensation scheme. These rules should regulate an employee’s entitlement to bonus payments (both during employment and during a notice period), as well as the eligibility criteria and how and when payments are to be made. This case shows how a lack of clarity in this respect can expose an employer to significant financial liability, . . . [more]

This morning, the UK Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision on Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament. Its decision in R (on the application of Miller) v. The Prime Minister and Cherry and others v. Advocate General for Scotland held that the Prime Minister had broken the law because the length of the prorogation without reasonable justification “prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role [of holding the Government to account]” [para.56].

The decision is significant in finding that considering whether the Prime Minister acted lawfully in this instance is justiciable and that the reasons . . . [more]

Toronto might be the megalith of cities when it comes to Canada’s metropolis, but it has no constitutional authority to oppose the province’s interference with municipal elections. That is the invariable conclusion arising out of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision this week.

The split 3-2 decision largely focused on two main issues. The first, whether unwritten constitutional principles could provide a basis to resist provincial modifications of the election, was unanimously decided by the court. The dissent only differed from the majority on the applicability of s. 2(b) rights in the circumstances of an ongoing election.

The majority was . . . [more]

The Quebec Court of Appeal has ruled against Sikh truck drivers who sought an exemption from wearing personal protective equipment – a helmet – as required by their employers because their religion requires them to wear a turban.

The Court ruled that workplace safety must take precedence over temporary impacts on freedom of religion.

According to Wikipedia, wearing a Sikh dastaar, or turban, is mandatory for all Sikh men. Among the Sikhs, the dastaar is an article of faith that represents honour, self-respect, courage, spirituality, and piety (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar).

Quick facts

In 2016, three Sikh truck drivers sought to be exempted . . . [more]

In Truchon c. Attorney General of Canada, 2019 QCCS 3792 (CanLII), a decision of the Quebec Superior Court, The Honourable Christine Baudouin, JCS held that the end of life requirement under section 26 of Quebec’s End-of-Life Care Act and the “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” requirement under the Criminal Code‘s medically-assisted death requirement are both unconstitutional as contravening section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and that the federal provision contravenes section 7; she did not consider whether the Quebec provision contavened section 7). The facts underpinning the challenges were the same. Nevertheless, should the . . . [more]

Some of you may have noticed that after over 25 years of being hosted exclusively under the Lexum domain at https://scc-csc.lexum.com, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) judgments are now also available under the Court’s own domain at https://decisions.scc-csc.ca. On top of the new URL, the database has been graphically integrated with the SCC institutional website, making it easier to navigate between judgments and the rest of the information published online by the court.

Renée Thériault, the Court’s Executive Legal Officer, says “This initiative is part of the Court’s continued efforts to make case-related information more accessible . . . [more]

Utilizing of the media, including social media, is an essential aspect of any civil litigator’s strategic arsenal. The Model Code of Professional Conduct outlines in Rule 7.5 the circumstances where a lawyer can communicate information to the media, which includes obligations to the client, the profession, the courts, or the administration of justice.

These communications must still be in the best interest of the client, and conducted in a professional manner. They should also not communicate any information that has a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a party’s right to a fair trial or hearing.”

Communications with the media should . . . [more]

Earlier this month, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed a broad view of public interest standing in Alford v. Canada (Attorney General) when it reversed a trial level decision denying Alford standing to challenge as unconstitutional a particular provision of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act. . . . [more]

Lawyers can sometimes be mundane in their construction of contracts, the the point where their scrutiny can appear pointless. Beyond just the contents, there is endless amount of time spent on syntax, grammar, and even punctuation.

There might be good reason for this, as the interpretation of these contracts can have a significant impact. A recent American cases focusing on commas has illustrated this quite clearly. In O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, the United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit held that delivery drivers of a dairy company in Maine fell into an overtime exemption under the state’s . . . [more]

On July 29, 2019, certain provisions of the Budget Implementation Act 2017, No.1 (introduced as Bill C-44) came into force. The new law streamlines the dispute resolution process under the Canada Labour Code in federally regulated workplaces by transferring adjudicative functions under the Employment and Social Development Canada – Labour Program to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB).

This transfer impacts: . . . [more]

The Conflict of Interest Act (the “Act”) is likely one of the most reviewed pieces of legislation this week, as a result of the release of the the Trudeau II Report. The characterizations of the Report, and the underlying lessons that may be gleaned, risk being lost to partisan narratives absent close scrutiny.

The history of attempts to define rules around conflicts of interest go back to at least the 1970s, but despite several discussion papers, task forces, committees, inquiries, and reports, very little was actually achieved for over three decades.

The first of these was a green paper introduced . . . [more]

A previous Slaw article (which you can read here) discussed the recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision that confirmed that the stringent test set out in Health Sciences Assoc of BC v Campbell River and North Island Transition Society (Campbell River) to determine if there was a duty to accommodate based on family status and if there is a prima facie case of discrimination based on family status, continues to be the applicable test in British Columbia.

Since this decision, the employee was seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to address the inconsistency in . . . [more]