By Hadiya Roderique

Last year we reported on a case where a Canadian employer was ordered to reinstate an employee who had tested positive for marijuana following a verbal altercation with his employer. Why? Because drug addiction is considered a disability in Canada. And individuals who suffer from addiction are protected from discrimination under human rights legislation.

Because drug testing is considered an invasion of privacy, it is allowed only: read more…

By Derek Knoechel

In early 2008, the owner of a dental practice, having recently purchased the business, faced some difficult choices. Given what appeared to be a temporary downturn in revenues, the owners decided on a temporary layoff.

While permitted by employment standards laws, the employer in the recent case of Besse v. Dr. A.S. Machner Inc. found out that the courts considered the layoff to amount to a termination of employment. The employment standards law didn’t provide a right to impose a temporary layoff – at least not without triggering all the severance rights the courts normally accord terminated employees.

read more…

By Marc Ouellet and Louise Béchamp

On November 27, 2009, in two cases involving Wal-Mart (Plourde v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and Desbiens v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp.), the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its much-awaited decision on an employer’s right to close operations for alleged antiunion reasons.

The Supreme Court decisions rule that Wal-Mart could close one of its stores following the unionization of its employees. Essentially, the court confirmed the principle by which an employer can overturn the presumption against it, established by section 17 of the Quebec Labour Code, by simply showing that the decision to close is “real and definitive.” This is possible even though the reasons behind the closing could be viewed as “socially reprehensible.”

read more…

By Lyne Duhaime

An IBM employee from Quebec made headlines last month when her disability benefits were cut off by the insurance company after it saw pictures of her on Facebook. Despite being off work for depression, the employee had posted photos of herself on vacation at the beach and at a Chippendale’s show. When IBM’s disability carrier saw the photos on Facebook, it cut off her disability benefits. In its view, the employee no longer appeared to be disabled within the meaning of the insurance contract.

This case raises interesting privacy issues. Are photos posted on a social media website personal information? Are employers, disability carriers, and other organizations prohibited from using such information? If not prohibited, are there limitations? Put simply, are employers (or, in this case, insurers) able to use the Internet to collect information about their current or future employees?

read more…