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]

Preamble

This post is the fifth 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. It is the Conclusion to the previous discussions. . . . [more]

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

Sometimes, when a period of employment comes to an end, the answers to why or how it ended become especially relevant. For example, under employment standards legislation, an employee may seek a payment on termination to which they are disentitled because of the facts leading to the breakdown in the employment relationship. This occurred recently in 2023 BCEST 17 (CanLII), where the British Columbia Employment Standards Tribunal refused the appeal of a worker who sought “length of service” compensation after finding that he quit his job. You can’t have your cake . . . [more]

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]