|
|
Every job has its own peculiarities. What might be a minor shortcoming in one type of employment could be catastrophic in another. This is especially true when the breach touches on the very heart of the duties assigned to an employee. This, at least, is what an employee learned in a recent Quebec case: Mardik v. Nova Bus. (2013 QCCS 1152; decision available in French only). read more…
Immigration Canada announced a new policy on December 15, 2012, that allows for bridging work permits. Foreign nationals who are currently working in Canada and have applied for permanent residence (under certain programs) can now apply for such a permit. This will allow them to stay and work until their permanent residence application is finalized. read more…
In wrongful dismissal cases in Canada, punitive damages awards are available only in exceptional situations. That’s what the Supreme Court of Canada said in 2008 in Honda Canada v. Keays. The employer’s conduct in the course of termination must be proven to be harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, and malicious. Despite this high threshold, a number of recent trial decisions show how Canadian courts are becoming more open to providing employees with punitive damages awards. read more…
By Marisa Victor and Lydia de Guzman
Canadian employers, like those in the United States, are required to deal effectively with sexual harassment in the workplace. But managers have usually been personally liable only in the worst cases.
The Alberta Court of Appeal has recently added to the ongoing debate in Canada over who is or isn’t an employer in the human rights context. In its recent decision in 375850 Alberta Ltd. v. Beverly Noel and the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, the dismissal of the complainant’s appeal illustrates that naming the correct employer is vital to the outcome. read more…
When the employment relationship becomes impossible to perform because of a factor outside the control of a Canadian employer or employee, the employee’s employment can be terminated by virtue of frustration of contract. When an employee won’t be able to return to work because of injury or illness, the same applies. But not so for federally regulated employers such as banks, airlines, inter-provincial trucking companies, etc.
According to the recent decision of Kingsway Transport v. Teamsters, Local Union 91, the frustration argument is no longer available for those employers when the employee’s inability to return to work is because of a work-related injury or illness. read more…
On Christmas Eve 2009, a swing stage (a work platform) suspended on the 14th floor of an Ontario apartment building collapsed. Four workers including the site supervisor died after falling to the ground.
Metron Construction was charged with criminal negligence causing death under Canada’s Criminal Code. The company’s owner and sole director, Joel Swartz, was charged under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act. Both the company and Swartz pleaded guilty. In two decisions, R. v. Metron and R. v. Swartz, both were fined significantly.
The basis for the charges and fines? The expanded scope of criminal liability under Canada’s Criminal Code, which is no longer confined to the “directing mind” of a corporation. Here it applied to an independent contractor. read more…
by Sara Parchello
While the summer has come and gone, employees’ photos of their summer activities may not be. If employees post those photos on Facebook or similar sites, employers may be confronted with just what employees did with their time over the summer. And what if, on a day an employee called in sick, you see photos of that same employee enjoying herself at a cottage, sunbathing on a dock with a cocktail in her hand?
Worse yet, what if the site allowed you to see the actual time that the employee posted the picture, being right in the middle of regular working hours? A recent arbitration case out of Alberta, Canada Post v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, confirms that Canadian employers can rely on such evidence of inappropriate behavior. read more…
Generally when employees decide to leave their jobs, they are considered to have quit. But in Canada, if they leave their jobs because the employer substantially changed essential terms of their employment, they are considered to have been constructively dismissed.
The line separating these two notions is often unclear. It’s especially so when terms of employment are changed after a corporate merger or integration. In a recent decision (St-Hilaire c. Nexxlink inc.), the Court of Appeal of Quebec reviewed the principles of constructive dismissal in this very context. read more…
by Rosalind H. Cooper
Employers and others are generally protected by actions against them that occur outside of limitation periods. That applies to charges under Canadian occupational health and safety legislation, too. But when do those limitation periods begin to run?
A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Justice in R. v. Corporation (City of Guelph) has said they may begin to run at different times for different entities. In this case, the court said that although the limitation period in the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) began to run for the employer when the accident occurred, it began to run much sooner for the architect and engineer involved in the construction of the project that led to the accident. As such, charges could proceed against the employer, but not the architect or engineer. read more…
|
|||||||
