It is settled law across Canada that employers are required to accommodate disabled employees to the point of undue hardship. While the legal meaning and extent of the terms “handicapped” and “undue hardship” are constantly being tested before tribunals at all levels, the concept is uncontroversial – an employer must adapt the workplace to accommodate a disabled employee to a certain point. Accordingly, employers may need to adapt workplaces by providing ramps or elevator access, special bathrooms, handrails, etc. Depending on a number of factors, it can be the employer’s responsibility to bear any costs associated with those adaptations. It’s . . . [more]

The past week former Supreme Court Justice the Hon. Frank Iacobucci released the Issues Report on Improving First Nations’ Representation on Ontario Juries. Iacobucci was appointed by Hon. Chris Bentley, Attorney General of Ontario, on Aug. 11, 2011 to review the jury process for First Nations living on reserves. The report concludes that Ontario’s justice system is in a state of crisis, as First Nations are overrepresented in the prison population and significantly underrepresented on jury lists and those who work in the administration of justice,

If we continue the status quo we will aggravate what is already a

. . . [more]

Proposed amendments to The Public Schools Act in Manitoba are causing concern among many supporters of Manitoba’s funded independent schools. Bill 18, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Safe and Inclusive Schools) formally defines bullying activities and requires school staff or supervisors to report incidents of bullying, including cyber-bullying to the school principal. The amendments also mandate school boards to put in place “respect for human diversity” policies.

The Bill was introduced by the majority government as part of its Anti-Bullying Action Plan and received First Reading on December 4, 2012. Modeled after Ontario’s 2012 amendments to the Education Act, . . . [more]

… sometimes.

For some lawyers, anyway.

EG’s clients lost completely. They didn’t have much on their side apart from EG. Assuming (for argument’s sake) the cab rank rule applies in Canada, a strict application says that EG was obliged to take the gamblers’ case provided they met his fee.

I wonder, though, what else it means that it wasn’t BG on the appeal.

“Frank”ly speaking, that is.

Moreira v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, 2013 ONCA 121. You can read about it in the papers. The short summary is: Gamblers lose; house wins. Again. Go figure.

  . . . [more]

The US government is sensitive about matters of national security. One of the expressions of this sensitivity is its unwillingness to have certain kinds of work performed by citizens of countries that the US considers likely to be hostile – e.g . Iran, Cuba, Yemen. etc. Thus it is forbidden by US law for companies doing certain kinds of work for some agencies of the US government to hire nationals of those countries for that work.

Canadian law prohibits discrimination in employment on the ground of national origin, among other things. This is governed by human rights codes and employment . . . [more]

One of the great strengths of the common law system is its ability to grow through the dialectical process of judicial determination of conflicting positions. This feature is absent in dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation.

A perfect illustration of the growth of the common law will be the determination by the UK Supreme Court of an appeal to be heard on 5 and 6 March 2013. The case involves a decision in which the English Court of Appeal sharply rejected the practice – adopted and developed in the Family Division over 25 years – of treating the assets of . . . [more]

It’s safe to say that most Slaw readers are familiar with the concept of Stare Decisis in the common law tradition. From the Latin, “to stand by things decided”, the concept of a legal system in which lower courts are bound by the determination of higher courts concerning questions of law leaves little room for the lower courts of a single jurisdiction to influence appreciation of the law across the country.

As Master in Chambers Funduk famously observed in a 1989 ruling:

[51] Any legal system which has a judicial appeals process inherently creates a pecking order . . . [more]

On February 11, 2013, an adjudicator of the Alberta Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner decided that Alberta's Legal Aid Society is subject to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), with consequences for all non-profit organizations that conduct activities with a commercial character.

In Custodia Legis, the blog of the Law Library of Congress in Washington, has an interesting post on Canonical Rules on the Resignation of a Pontiff, and the Election of a New Pontiff (part 1 of 2 posted yesterday).

It is written by by Dante Figueroa, Senior Legal Information Analyst at the Law Library of Congress:

Since the last papal resignation was nearly 600 years ago, this month’s announcement took the world by surprise and resulted in many questions. I will address several of the most important juridical questions arising from Pope Benedict’s resignation, for which there are responses

. . . [more]

Fans of interpretation — especially constitutional construction — will enjoy the extended analysis in “The Recess Appointments Clause (Part 1)” by Neal Goldfarb on his blog LAWnLinguistics (Not about the linguistics of lawns). Much in the D.C. Circuit appellate decision in Noel Canning v. National Labor Relations Board hinges on the “the” found in the Recess Appointments clause in Article Two of the US Constitution:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

. . . [more]

Hogarth v Rocky Mountain Slate Inc., 2013 ABCA 57, from the reasons of Slatter JA concurring in the result:

[16] The issue on this appeal is whether the promoters of a limited partnership are personally liable to investors for misrepresentations made about the investment. …

…

[73] The law respecting the liability of directors and officers for torts committed while conducting corporate business is not entirely consistent. Some cases approach the problem from the perspective of the “duty of care”,whereas others approach it from the perspective of “piercing the corporate veil”. Some exceptions to general liability

. . . [more]

Last year, I posted about the minimum wage in Canada. That same debate has also flared in the United States. During the recent state of the union address, U.S. President Barack Obama argued for an increase in the minimum wage in the United States. The Federal minimum wage in the US is $7.25, which applies to jobs covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (generally applying to employees engaged in interstate commerce). For US employees governed by state law, the minimum wage can go from $5.25 (Wyoming) to $9.19 (Washington State). In Canada, the vast majority of employees are . . . [more]