On June 29, 2021, the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, (introduced as Bill C-30) received royal assent in the Senate and is now law. Provisions in the new law will come into force at various dates and by proclamation. The new law allows the creation of the Canada Recovery Hiring Program, the extended Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy to September 25, 2021, and other HR and payroll measures explained in this article. . . . [more]

When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit Ontario, the provincial government made a special order on March 20, 2020 under s. 7.1(2) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, creating a suspension of limitations under O. Reg. 73/20,

Limitation periods

1. Any provision of any statute, regulation, rule, by-law or order of the Government of Ontario establishing any limitation period shall be suspended, and the suspension shall be retroactive to Monday, March 16, 2020. 

Period of time, steps in a proceeding

While Canada wrestles with the mounting tolls of historic deaths at residential schools, many are reconsidering how to celebrate Canada Day on July 1, 2021. There are calls for an independent probe, and even for criminal charges to be laid.

The upside is that this might be Canada’s moment of reconciliation, with unprecedented interest in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Accepting the realities of this past may be the first steps to creating a better future.

How the legal system deals with these issues is equally challenging, as illustrated by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision earlier . . . [more]

In Ontario, Small Claims Court’s monetary jurisdiction increased from $25,000 to $35,000 on Jan. 1, 2020. This has allows far more claims to be heard in this venue, with its streamlined processes and less procedural delays. Even prior to the pandemic, the Small Claims Court handled more than half of all of Ontario’s civil disputes.

Wrongful dismissal claims in particular have been effectively advanced in this venue, especially during the pandemic, and for those looking to avoid the cost consequences of improperly advancing a claim in Superior Court. However, in order for these proceedings to be heard effectively, the courts . . . [more]

Nearly three years ago, I wrote here that the use of s. 33 in Ontario constituted “UnChartered waters.”

Given the successful appeal in that case, the use of the clause ultimately wasn’t necessary. However, I was fortunate to appear as an intervener before the Court to note that the potential use of the notwithstanding clause would presumably emerge in circumstances that were clearly pressing and substantial, and asked the Court to carefully scrutinize any such rationale as a result. That decision is still pending.

Perhaps because the case involved the elections of a single city (albeit the largest in Canada, . . . [more]

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

Many readers will remember the Bugs Bunny cartoons that featured an ostrich who would bury its head in the sand to avoid a predator or some other form of imminent danger. It turns out that ostriches do not really bury their heads in the sand to avoid problems, but the cartoon offers a nice analogy to the way the employer in Cybulsky v Hamilton Health Sciences, 2021 HRTO 213 (CanLII) handled one of its employees’ allegations of discrimination. In this case, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered the plight . . . [more]

In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Clark (“Clark“), the majority (8 judges) of the Supreme Court of Canada held that Crown immunity precludes claims based on misfeasance in public office. Justice Côté dissented. Here I consider the policy underpinnings and ramifications of the two opinions. . . . [more]

You’ll see it every few weeks on LinkedIn. Somebody somewhere is complaining that LinkedIn is not Facebook. They’re usually complaining about it on LinkedIn, and the comments on these posts bear an earie resemblance to social media platforms that are not LinkedIn.

Joshua Titsworth says that despite being founded in 2002, the site has gone through significant changes since that time,

The truth about LinkedIn is that despite its intended use, it has always been a form of social media… Given the relatively community-based origins of the site, it may seem strange to take issue with LinkedIn for becoming too

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

Employees who are unjustly dismissed cannot simply sit back, relax and wait for their payday in court. They have a duty to mitigate their losses by taking reasonable steps to find work elsewhere. In Wilson v Pomerleau Inc., 2021 BCSC 388 (CanLII), the plaintiff learned this the hard way, seeing his damages reduced on account of his lax approach to mitigating his losses. . . . [more]

The Quebec Government’s An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec (Bill 96), has generated considerable controversy over whether a province is able to make significant constitutional changes to its status and the use of the French and English languages unilaterally. It also raises the question of whether, if enacted and the constitution is amended, it will undermine the very architecture of the 1867 constitutional “deal” that united the original four members of confederation and subsequently the rest of the provinces. The answers to these two interrelated questions could have momentous ramifications for Canada. . . . [more]

In 2015, Shauna Hall-Coates wrote in the Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies,

Walk into any courtroom today, critics venture, and it will look stunningly similar to those of the past; the judge will be sitting behind the bench, the jury in its box, and the witness on the stand.1 As everyone settles into his or her place selected by centuries of ritual and status quo, the courtroom may even appear as a sanctuary from the trappings of digital technology, so doggedly pursued outside its walls.

This segregation between the courtroom and digital technology is nonetheless collapsing, as trial spectators

Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Student-at-Law, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In Peretta v Rand v Technology Corporation (“Perretta”), an employer repudiated an employment contract by insisting that a new term be added after the contract had already come into effect. The reason that the employer’s insistence on adding a new term resulted in the repudiation of the contract was that the new term was so important that the employer’s attempt to force the employee to agree to it showed an intention to not be bound by the original contract. . . . [more]