Can tribunal rule on harassment complaint if alleged harasser works for different employer?

August 28, 2016 0 COMMENTS

by Lorene Novakowski

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear a complaint where the alleged harasser was employed by a different employer than the alleged victim. The alleged harasser was not in a position of control over the complainant even though they worked at the same site. So the complaint was not regarding employment, as it must be. So ruled the BC Court of Appeal recently. read more…

B.C. Court of Appeal addresses termination and severance issues

December 13, 2015 0 COMMENTS

by Kevin O’Neill, Q.C.

In Canada, in Hall v. Quicksilver Resources Canada Inc., 2015 BCCA 291, the British Columbia Court of Appeal addressed two important termination and severance issues:

1. In the sale of a business, when and how do an employee’s years of service continue to bind the purchaser?
2. What is the proper severance for a “skilled services” employee (not senior management) with 8.5 months of service? read more…

How ‘come back to work’ doesn’t always work: offers of re-employment to former employees

October 18, 2015 0 COMMENTS

by David McDonald

In Canada, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia recently issued a decision narrowing the possibility for employers to use re-employment offers to support an argument that an estranged employee has failed to mitigate damages by refusing to come back to work. read more…

BC Court of Appeal takes a narrow view of the SCC’s New Labour Trilogy

August 09, 2015 0 COMMENTS

By Christopher Pigott

In a previous article, we reported on the Supreme Court of Canada’s “New Labour Trilogy,” a set of three landmark constitutional law decisions released in January 2015 that raised questions about basic aspects of Canada’s labor relations system. Unsurprisingly, the decisions sparked a huge debate in the Canadian labor law community as to whether the Supreme Court of Canada had reshaped Canadian workers’ rights to organize, bargain collectively, and take strike action. read more…

The case for cause with a single act of employee misconduct

May 03, 2015 0 COMMENTS

by Keri Bennett

The Supreme Court of Canada tells Canadian employers that they must strike a balance between the severity of the misconduct and the sanction imposed when deciding whether to terminate employment for cause. So what happens when the misconduct is a single act? Can that justify termination for cause? According to the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Steel v. Coast Capital Savings Credit Union, the answer is yes. read more…

Dishonesty: When can you fire someone for it?

February 01, 2015 0 COMMENTS

by Lindsey Taylor

The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently reaffirmed that dishonest conduct may be just cause for dismissal without notice. Or it may not. To determine if it is just cause, the conduct must be assessed looking at the whole context of the employment relationship. read more…

British Columbia court offers more lessons about employment contracts

September 14, 2014 0 COMMENTS

by Monique Orieux

Last year in Northern Exposure we shared five key lessons about Canadian employment contracts arising from the trial court’s decision in Miller v. Convergys CMG Canada Limited Partnership. The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently issued its decision in the case: Miller v. Convergys CMG Canada Limited Partnership, 2014 BCCA 311. Its decision reinforces those lessons. It also serves as a reminder that employment agreements should be tailored to the individual circumstances of each employee. read more…

U.S. employment agreement ruled inapplicable after transfer to British Columbia

May 26, 2013 0 COMMENTS

By Katherine Pollock

A recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Stanley v. Advertising Directory Solutions, considered the rights of an employee of a U.S. company who was working for a Canadian subsidiary when terminated. The court found she was entitled to notice or pay in lieu of notice upon termination according to Canadian law. This despite a written agreement with the U.S. parent that said she was employed at will.

The court ruled that an agreement with a U.S. parent company won’t permit a Canadian company, which is also the person’s employer, to avoid its obligation to provide reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice of termination. read more…

The irony of irreparable harm

February 10, 2013 0 COMMENTS

By Bruce Grist

Conventional wisdom suggests that because a nonsolicitation clause is more likely than a noncompete clause to be enforced by a Canadian court, why bother including a noncompete clause in an employment agreement? The British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in Edward Jones v. Voldeng suggests that there is still value in including a noncompete clause. Why? It may be easier to demonstrate irreparable harm, one of the requirements to obtain an injunction, when a former employee has breached a noncompete clause. read more…

Aspects of Attendance Management Program Ruled Discriminatory

November 22, 2010 0 COMMENTS

By David Wong

Attendance management programs themselves aren’t discriminatory — they just need to be carefully designed and properly applied. Such is the latest conclusion in continuing litigation between Coast Mountain Bus Company Ltd. and the Canadian Auto Workers, a battle over an attendance management program covering transit operators in the Greater Vancouver region in British Columbia.

In May 2009, we commented on the British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision in which the court largely accepted the employer’s program.

read more…

 Page 1 of 2  1  2 »