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

When an employee who is off work due to a disability is terminated, there are typically red flags signaling a potential situation of discrimination. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s decision in Fick v Loomis Express, 2022 CHRT 2 (CanLII) confirms that it is not always as it seems. Despite bad first appearances, the employer’s actions can be found legitimate, countering a claim of discrimination. . . . [more]

The Charter‘s right to counsel under s. 10(b) is an often misunderstood and confused right by many members of the public. This confusion likely emerges from unintentional analogies to the commonly cited American case Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966) in television and movies.

The Court did adopt elements that mirrored Miranda rights in the early Charter case of R. v. Brydges, 1990 CanLII 123 (SCC). The Court found that s. 10(b) meant that police have a duty to informed individuals who are detained or arrested of their right to retain and instruct counsel, and . . . [more]

Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Student-at-Law (third year), Editor, First Reference Inc.

In Oostlander v Cervus Equipment Corporation (“Oostlander”), the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench subtracted an employee’s payments under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) program from their entitlement to reasonable notice following their wrongful dismissal. While the 36-year employee’s entitlement to damages after receiving one month of notice was not in question, the Albertan court’s decision to subtract the amount they had received under the CERB program represents a regional answer to an evolving question throughout the country. Whether this Western approach to CERB will emerge into a . . . [more]

We’ve all heard about the civil justice system being crisis, and we’ve heard it for decades.

The so-called culture of complacency in criminal proceedings, and corresponding Charter protections in those cases, invariably means a prioritization of judicial resources in those cases.

Even prior to that time, the Court has attempted to foster a cultural shift in civil proceedings through the use of summary judgment motions.

The result has been that instead of threatening to take the other side to trial, parties threaten to take a matter to summary judgment.

But you should always be careful what you threaten. One unanticipated . . . [more]

On May 19, 2021, the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Privacy Commissioners provided an unusual and joint statement around vaccine passports, where they cautioned about the use of these measures, even when effective in addressing the harm of the pandemic,

At its essence, a vaccine passport presumes that individuals will be required or requested to disclose personal health information – their vaccine/immunity status – in exchange for goods, services and/or access to certain premises or locations. While this may offer substantial public benefit, it is an encroachment on civil liberties that should be taken only after careful consideration. This statement focuses

Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Student-at-law (last year), Editor First Reference Inc.

In Cyncora v Axton Inc (“Cyncoxa”), an employer discriminatorily dismissed its employee with a disability despite the employee’s undisputed absenteeism. The fact that the employer had some legitimate concerns about the employee’s fitness for its time-sensitive workplace did not remove the reality that one of the underlying reasons for its struggles with the employee was his ongoing struggle with depression and anxiety. . . . [more]

During the pandemic, the federal government introduced several programs to provide financial assistance to those affected by economic lockdowns and business closures. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit program (CERB) provided $2,000 for an initial 4-week period, with an extension to 28-weeks for a maximum of $14,000.

Eligibility for CERB included:

•  individuals residing in Canada;
• who were at least 15 years old;
• who had stopped working or had been working reduced hours due to COVID-19;
• who did not expect to earn over $1,000 in employment or self-employment income for at least 14 days in a row during a four-week period;
• who

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

There has been significant debate in courtrooms and arbitration hearings over the years about the threshold point at which a complainant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination by an employer on the ground of family status. In British Columbia, the law stood to be clarified after that province’s Human Rights Tribunal got it wrong concerning two spouses who worked at a mine and sought scheduling accommodations. The Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision in Gibraltar Mines Ltd. v Harvey, 2022 BCSC 385 is sure to be cited or read . . . [more]

On April 1, 2022, Pope Francis apologized to residential school survivors, after a week of private meetings with delegations from Indigenous people in Canada,

I also feel shame… sorrow and shame for the role that a number of Catholics, particularly those with educational responsibilities, have had in all these things that wounded you, and the abuses you suffered and the lack of respect shown for your identity, your culture and even your spiritual values.

For the deplorable conduct of these members of the Catholic Church, I ask for God’s forgiveness and I want to say to you with all my

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

As every workplace is unique, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with COVID-19. While some workplaces have mandated vaccination, others took a slightly toned-down approach. In CKF Inc. and TC, Local 213 (COVID Testing), Re, 2022 CarswellBC 198, a British Columbia arbitrator examined and upheld a policy that required weekly testing for those who refused to be vaccinated.

Background

The employer in this case is in the business of manufacturing single-use food packaging products like egg cartons and foam meat trays that are commonly found in grocery stores. . . . [more]

Due to social distancing measures during the pandemic, almost all documents during this time were signed digitally, as opposed to traditional (“wet signatures”) methods.

Well before the pandemic, electronic signatures have been considered legally valid. Ontario, Alberta and B.C. have had statutes in place for over two decades recognizing the validity of electronic signatures, based on the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act of Canada (“UECA”) model legislation.

However, there is still some variability between provincial legislation on how electronic signatures are used. Ontario‘s statute allows for these to satisfy any legal requirement, as long as it is reliable for . . . [more]

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

In 2019, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal found that Levan Francis was the victim of discrimination on the basis of his race and colour at the hands of his employer, the Ministry of Justice, North Fraser Pre-trial Centre. The damage was extensive: Francis suffered a serious mental illness that prevented him from working in any occupation. In a follow-up decision, the Tribunal determined what remedies were available to Francis. Since the governing principle on remedy is to put someone back in the original position, the fact that almost . . . [more]