The Vice-Chair of the Labour Relations Board just decided that there was not a continuity between Zellers’ business for its employees to be successively employed by Target in Canada. Although the employees would perform similar jobs at Target stores as they had at Zellers, and the transaction agreement confirmed the transfer of leases, pharmacy records and the brand waiver, these things were not sufficient to conclude that there would be a handover of these employees. As a result, the union’s application was dismissed.

What’s that? The stuff you say online has no consequences in real life? I bet those officers at your door felt real. torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/r…

— Steve Murray (@NPsteve) November 21, 2012

It’s so easy to type words into a little box and hit send. Sometimes the words are backchannel chatter, during a broadcast of something everyone’s watching sort-of together. Other words are ill-considered remarks or comments perhaps more easily posted on a screen than spoken to a face. Sometimes words are directed at someone—or someone’s avatar—but not really to the person. These words can seem virtual, but they’re real and . . . [more]

The internet is a-buzzing: after 60 years of display, a court in Santa Monica, California has ruled that the city did not overstep when it barred, in one of its public parks, an annual traditional nativity scene, as well as any other private displays during this holiday season (read article here).

A U.S. federal judge rejected the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee’s motion to allow the religious display this year. The judge found that the city had banned the display booths for holiday-themed installations in that one specific city park as they were a drain on the city’s resources . . . [more]

The Edmonton Journal headline reads “Edmonton judge’s cut-and-paste findings tossed by appeal court“. The sensational headline is about a decision cited University of Alberta v Chang, 2012 ABCA 324 (linked to the Alberta Courts website).

The appeals were from two chambers decisions:
University of Alberta v. Chang, 2011 ABQB 595 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fp692
University of Alberta v. Chang, 2011 ABQB 596 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fp6bv

In the above decisions, the judge granted the applications to dismiss the case for delay and prosecution and dismissed the actions.

The Court of Appeal was very critical of the reasons:

[17] The chambers judge followed

. . . [more]

A committee representing Federal Court judges, court officials and lawyers is proposing changes to the rules of the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal [press release] to make things easier for self-represented litigants and to cut down on vexatious lawsuits:

“The study proposes new tools to address abusive, inappropriate, disproportionate and wasteful litigation conduct. It also identifies a number of steps – many novel – to improve access to the Federal Courts, particularly by self-represented parties. ”

“The study is the product of a comprehensive policy review of the practices and procedures of the Federal Courts. A national

. . . [more]

The 19th-annual Disability Awareness Week began on November 12, 2012. Fittingly, on November 9, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a landmark decision in...

Picking up on a recent post by Prof. David Doorey on his blog, I thought this week that I’d highlight a recent decision by an Ontario court to sentence an employer (the director of the company) to 90 days in jail for repeatedly violating the Ontario Employment Standards Act (discussed also in the Huffington Post) He was also fined $280,000. In a press release, the Ministry of Labour explained as follows:

Between March 2007 and October 2009, 61 employees from six companies, operated by Blondin filed claims with the Ministry of Labour for unpaid wages. An investigation

. . . [more]

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled today that the Hungarian government’s decision to lower the mandatory age of retirement for judges, prosecutors and notaries from the age of 70 to 62 constituted discrimination on the grounds of age (read the decision here). 

While recognizing that legitimate social policy objectives can justify a derogation from the prohibition of discriminating on the grounds of age, in this case, the objectives of this measure invoked by the Hungarian government – the need to standardize the age-limits for retirement for public sector employees and to establish a balanced age . . . [more]

When jurisdictions enact new legislation governing limitation periods for causes of action, the legislation will deal with the transition between the old regime and the new. Transition provisions are needed because incidents alleged to create causes of action may have occurred while the old legislation was in force but the action was not commenced until after the new legislation took effect.

Duchesne v. St-Denis, 2012 ONCA 699 is such a case.

It is an important case for Ontario lawyers on the interpretation of Ontario’s the Limitations Act, 2002, particular where the injured person was under the age . . . [more]

At issue in the second request for reconsideration is the Tribunal’s determination that an ongoing wage differential between disabled and non-disabled employees is not a series of incidents for the purposes of determining the limitation period provided by section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave for appeal for the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Bedford v. Canada. The Court also granted that the appellate decision be stayed until judgement is rendered, meaning the Criminal Code provisions relating to prostitution challenged in this case will still be valid, even if not routinely or uniformly enforced by the police.

The Bedford case may be heard in conjunction with, or set a legal backdrop, to a similar case in B.C. in (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society. The differences between the cases have . . . [more]

This morning, by 6 to 1, the SCC dealt with pornography on a work-issued computer and whether an employee had any reasonable expectation of privacy. The majority of the court set asise the Ontario Court of Appeal’s order in R. v. Cole, to exclude the evidence on the basis that it was obatined in breach of ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Abella J. would have continued the exclusion. A new trial will be held in any event.

Here is the headnote: . . . [more]