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 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.
The transfer of employees from foreign-based companies to Canadian-based affiliates is an increasingly common feature of the Canadian labor market. Many employers are familiar with the often complicated process of obtaining the necessary work permits for such employees at the beginning of the transfer. However, ending the relationship between the transferred employee and the Canadian-based employer can present its own challenges. Some of these challenges are illustrated by the British Columbia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nishina v. Azuma Foods (Canada) Co., Ltd.
The bad news is that one of your employees has just commenced a long-term disability (LTD) leave. You may well have concerns like: (1) Will the employee ever return to work? (2) If so, when? (3) What accommodations would be needed to allow a return to work? (4) What will it all cost?
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 â€“ at least not without triggering all the severance rights the courts normally accord terminated employees.