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

Before you read any further, you’ll want Rockwell’s “Somebody’s Watching Me” playing in the background. Can you think of something that pits management rights against privacy in the workplace quite like surveillance cameras do? The potential for these unblinking eyes to be abused prompted the union in [2023] A.G.A.A. No. 3 to file a policy grievance unsuccessfully challenging their presence in one workplace. . . . [more]

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

A claim of discrimination is a serious thing, and the allegation won’t pass muster without any evidence to back it up. If there’s no evidence, a claim cannot succeed. The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench turfed a claim in these circumstances in 2022 SKQB 188. . . . [more]

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

Often, cases about the validity of termination provisions in employment contracts focus on whether the contract language sufficiently ousts the common law presumption of reasonable notice. Such provisions commonly refer to, or incorporate by reference, a minimum legislative standard amount of notice that must be given. What those generally familiar with the law might not think twice about is precisely which minimum standard applies. The one applicable to individuals, right? Now, what if the contract is silent about group terminations? Could an ex-employee argue the termination clause was invalid because it . . . [more]

Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, LL.B., Articled Clerk, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In a recent British Columbia ruling, an employee who engaged in a pattern of time theft was found to have been rightfully dismissed for cause. As a result of the dismissal being upheld, the employee was forced to repay a debt she owed to the employer due to an advance agreement that funded her home office supplies and her pursuit of professional credentials. . . . [more]

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

You’re familiar with the scenario: a momentary physical flare-up over nothing provides the employer with arguable grounds for termination. They’re arguable because there are no hard-and-fast rules that termination results in every case of physical violence. In a legal challenge, arbitrators pay close attention to anything the employee says to take responsibility for his or her actions or to show remorse. In 2022 CanLII 112111 (CA LA), we see how significant the mitigating factor of an apology-or the lack of one-can be. . . . [more]

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

Employees have important protections under workplace legislation that encourages them to bring forward complaints of health and safety issues so the employer can ensure the safety of all. If a complainant employee is the victim of perceived retaliation by the employer, they can seek a remedy. The litigation in 2022 BCSC 1558 (CanLII) highlights some of the legal issues that can arise. . . . [more]

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

Private delivery people shuttling food orders around town is a common sight in today’s gig economy. Between the lowly driver and the huge multi-national corporation they carry the food for, it’s easy to imagine who holds the real power in this type of working arrangement. In the case decided by the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench in 2022 MBKB 178 (CanLII), the court shifted the balance of power toward the “little guy” by ruling that mandatory acceptance of an arbitration clause was unconscionable and lacked consideration. By rendering the clause . . . [more]

Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, LL.B., Articled Clerk, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In a recent Ontario ruling, an employer was forced to pay an extremely high amount in costs after attempting to enforce its non-competition and non-solicitation clauses twice in the middle of the same legal proceedings. The employer had brought two separate motions that both sought to prevent its former employee from working for its competitor. However, the fact that the employee had actually ceased working for its competitor and that the non-competition and non-solicitation clauses in its contracts had actually expired made the employer’s request impossible. The impossibility . . . [more]

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

Faced with a unique set of facts, an Ontario court in 2022 ONSC 5890 (CanLII) let two in-house lawyers off the hook when their former client sued them following the breakdown of their employment relationship. Would-be litigants in situations like the plaintiff’s would do well to remember that things aren’t always as they at first seem. It should almost go without saying: litigants had better have the evidence to prove it if they allege a breach of contractual or fiduciary duties. . . . [more]

Challenges to the existing constitutional order in Canada are not new. My use of the phrase “constitutional order” highlights that one of the reasons (although not the only one) for these challenges has been to create chaos or (more mildly) to disrupt the constitutional status quo. Here I refer to several recent examples of the how governments and individuals and groups may challenge the constitutional order and consider where the amended Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada (see amendments here) fits along the continuum. . . . [more]

Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, LL.B., Articled Clerk, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In a recent ruling, it was found that an employee was successful at fulfilling his mitigation obligations, even though he was not successful at mitigating his loss. Although failing to look for a job seems like a clear failure to mitigate a loss of employment, this ruling clarified that an employee only fails to mitigate when comparable employment is actually available. If an employee’s job market does not contain any comparable roles, any failure to take reasonable steps to find comparable employment will not be a failure . . . [more]

Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, LL.B., Articled Clerk, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In a recent ruling, an employer’s application for review of an order to pay was denied after the employer failed to provide the required deposit. The employer had stated it had no ability to pay the deposit due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the Ontario Labour Relations Board refused to waive the deposit. The employer offered to enter a payment plan, but the Ontario Labour Relations Board also rejected this suggestion. . . . [more]