Written by Christina Catenaci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, Content Editor, published by First Reference Inc.,

In April 2024, the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board confirmed the decision of the Director of Employment Standards that an elected municipal councillor with a local government governed by the Local Governance Act was not an employee. He claimed that his six-month suspension was a violation of the Employment Standards Act and that he was owed damages. The Board concluded that the councillor did not meet the definition of “employee.” Therefore, the Board dismissed the councillor’s claim. . . . [more]

This article offers a concise overview of the Council of Europe’s (CoE) recent efforts in shaping global artificial intelligence (AI) governance. The newly adopted Framework Convention on AI has important implications for member states and beyond, notably Canada. Organizations and employers beginning to navigate the AI landscape will want to assess the widespread impact of this treaty on businesses worldwide. . . . [more]

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

Employers are no stranger to various forms of litigation like grievances, lawsuits and human rights complaints. Sometimes, these complaints proceed to a full hearing and decision, but not unfrequently, matters are settled by the parties without the need for a hearing. Usually, these settlements require the parties to keep the details confidential and not make any disparaging statements about the other party. A 2023 decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, HRTO 1138 (CanLII) illustrates a remedy that might be open to the employer if the employee breaches these . . . [more]

Written by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, Content Editor, First Reference Inc.

In February 2024, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador certified a privacy class action. The representative plaintiffs, on behalf of 260 individuals (first 240 individuals, and second 20 individuals), alleged that their privacy was violated when an employee of the defendant employer (a health authority) accessed the private information of these individuals that was outside the scope of their employment. The employer became aware of the first and second alleged breaches in 2020 and 2021, respectively. The main claim against the employer was that there . . . [more]

INTRODUCTION

Webber Academy (or “the school”), a private educational institution in Alberta, defined itself as non-denominational: it did not engage in any overt religious practice (with one possible and qualified exception). Yet, after two Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) decisions, two Queen’s Bench (as it then was) (QB) judgements, two Court of Appeal (CA) rulings and two denial of leaves to appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), it was held to have discriminated without justification against two Muslim students whom it prohibited from engaging, on school property, in overt prayers. How did this happen? And what does it . . . [more]

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

The Supreme Court of British Columbia rendered a decision (2024 BCSC 55 (CanLII)) on judicial review which looked at the employer’s choice to implement a COVID-19 vaccination policy, and whether, under the Labour Relations Code, it was obligated to enter into discussions with the union first. The case provides employers with insight into the difficulty of overturning a tribunal’s decision. . . . [more]

Written by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, Content Editor, First Reference Inc.

In January 2024, a British Columbia labour arbitrator had no hesitation concluding that an employee, who was the grievor accusing a female colleague of sexual harassment in this case, was actually the one who was sexually harassing the female colleague. Simply put, the arbitrator found that the grievor’s evidence was not credible, the female colleague’s account was credible and consistent with the evidence, and the female colleague did not do what the employee accused her of. As a result, the labour arbitrator agreed with the employer that . . . [more]

On April 4, 2024, the Alberta Court of Appeal released its decision in Altius Royalty Corporation v Alberta, 2024 ABCA 105 (CanLII).

The appellants own a royalty interest in a coal mine. In 2014 they acquired royalty interests in the Genesee coal mine. This coal fuels the Genesee power plant in Alberta.
By 2012 federal performance standards, the end of life of the three coal-fired plants was determined to be 2039, 2044 and 2055 (para 3).

They claim their interest was constructively expropriated (paras 2 and 5) when the government of Canada amended the regulations to require the . . . [more]

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

The interim decision of Caroline Sand, Member of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in 2024 HRTO 233 (CanLII) shows what can happen when a party is invited to participate but decides not to. As it turns out, the technique of putting one’s head in the sand works for ostriches but not for employers who seek to avoid liability for human rights complaints. . . . [more]

In July 2023, IRCC Minister Marc Miller was put in charge of our immigration system and he has been focused on fixing problems while addressing the growing anti-immigration sentiment within Canada. On one side, he inherited many years of Liberal promises to welcome and support international students and to meet lofty goals. To that end, he remains committed to the goal of 485k new permanent residents in 2024, 500k in 2025 and 500k in 2026. On the other side, Minister Miller has overseen a series of decisions to cut programs, increase restrictions and add roadblocks to previous pathways. Applicants most . . . [more]

Written by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, Content Editor, First Reference Inc.

In December 2023, the Vice-Chairperson of the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board (Board) confirmed that the employer discriminated against an employee when the employer terminated his employment following an injury. The Board also concluded that the employer bullied, harassed and belittled the employee. Consequently, the Board awarded $10,000 as general damages, which included damages for injury to the employee’s dignity, feelings, self-respect and self-worth. Further, the employer was required to participate in a one-day human rights training course on the duty to accommodate. . . . [more]

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

In a succinct interim decision, 2024 HRTO 225 (CanLII), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) explained when it might grant an application to expand the list of respondents to a human rights complaint. It’s not as simple as one might think. In this case, the complainant sought to add a former employer as a respondent in his individual, personal capacity, to her sex discrimination complaint. The targeted individual was a majority shareholder and director of the employer. . . . [more]