We use cookies on this site to enable your digital experience. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our cookie policy. close
Focus On
NEW In-House Counsel | Insurance | Intellectual Property | Immigration | Natural Resources | Real Estate | Tax

Labour & Employment


Thursday, July 06, 2017 @ 9:10 AM

Severance liability, bad faith damages result of employer’s ambiguous standards Gazometr

On May 1, 2017, the BC Supreme Court awarded a spa worker $15,000 in aggravated/bad faith damages for the manner in which she was treated by her employer. ... [read more]

Thursday, July 06, 2017 @ 8:08 AM

LABOUR RELATIONS BOARDS - Jurisdiction - Exclusive

Motion by the Union defendants for dismissal or a stay of the action by the plaintiffs on jurisdictional grounds. The plaintiffs were creditors of Southern Ontario Concrete Forming Ltd. (SOCF), a joint venture corporation controlled by the plaintiffs and Alliance Forming Ltd. (Alliance). ... [read more]

Wednesday, July 05, 2017 @ 2:23 PM

Cox & Palmer welcomes four new associates

Four new associates have joined Cox & Palmer’s New Brunswick offices. ... [read more]

Thursday, June 29, 2017 @ 10:49 AM

B.C. court restores human rights tribunal decision in dismissal of city worker Gabrielle Scorer

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has restored a human rights tribunal decision to dismiss a complaint brought by a former City of Vancouver employee as the chambers judge erred “in concluding that the tribunal based its decision upon its own findings of fact, in finding that key issues of credibility required a hearing and in failing to afford sufficient deference to the tribunal.” ... [read more]

Tuesday, June 27, 2017 @ 2:03 PM

Langlois adds two lawyers to Quebec City office

Langlois lawyers announces that two new lawyers have joined the firm's Quebec City office. ... [read more]

Tuesday, June 27, 2017 @ 8:50 AM

The ongoing uncertainty of random drug and alcohol testing Random testing

Recent focus on drug testing in various sectors, particularly in transit, airlines and the nuclear industry, points to increased judicial and regulatory attention to this area. ... [read more]

Monday, June 26, 2017 @ 9:17 AM

Asian legal clinic toll-free hotline has access to justice dialled in Avvy Go

A toll-free hotline launched on June 18 at the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic will provide legal advice for people across Ontario whose access to justice is limited by language barriers. ... [read more]

Thursday, June 22, 2017 @ 8:34 AM

APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW - Stay of arbitration award pending review

Application by the Union to lift the stay of execution of an order pursuant to Rule 15 of the Court of Appeal Rules, or in the alternative, for an order declaring that the judgment was not stayed except to the extent of the appeal taken by the Union. The Union represented Type 1 Wildland firefighters working for the province. Since 1999, the firefighters had been required to pass a fitness test. The Union and the province had agreed by a Letter of Understanding (LOU) that employees hired prior to April 1, 1999 would be “grandfathered” and not have to successfully complete the fitness test, known as the “arduous test”. In 2012, the province replaced the arduous test with a new fitness test, the “WFX-Fit Test”. The new test was implemented unilaterally and firefighters hired prior to April 1, 1999 were not exempted. The Union filed two policy grievances and argued that the new test was discriminatory against certain employees and that its implementation violated the terms of the LOU. The arbitrator found that the test was discriminatory against older male and female employees and that its implementation breached the LOU by failing to exempt grandfathered firefighters. On judicial review, the Chambers judge quashed the arbitrator’s decision in part, finding that the WFX-Fit Test was not discriminatory with respect to gender and age. The Union appealed the order setting aside the arbitrator’s finding that the new test was discriminatory. It applied to lift the stay imposed on the implementation of the portion of the arbitrator’s decision that was not quashed, specifically, the finding that the implementation of the new test breached the LOU. The Union pointed out that of 47 formerly exempt employees, only 20 of those employees passed the new test and that several lost work or feared losing work in the future if they had to complete the WFX-Fit Test. ... [read more]

Wednesday, June 21, 2017 @ 8:59 AM

Workplace reorganizations: Quebec employers beware

Workplace reorganizations often come with their fair share of challenges and require employees and managers alike to be patient and understanding. Changes in working methods, tasks or lines of authority may ruffle the feathers of certain employees, which is why management should not spare any efforts to efficiently communicate the reasons behind the proposed changes and the objectives it strives to achieve. ... [read more]

Tuesday, June 20, 2017 @ 8:50 AM

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT - Express terms - Remuneration - Commissions

Appeal by the corporate defendant, GWR Resources (GWR), from a $55,000 award in quantum meruit compensating the respondent, Birch, for the role he played in acquiring an investment in the appellant’s mining project. In 2009 or 2010, GWR’s president approached the respondent with respect to finding investors for the mining property. The president said words like: “find us some money and we’ll look after you”. Birch took this statement to mean that he would receive a finder's fee if he introduced investors who made substantial investments in GWR's project. In August 2010, GWR hired Birch as an investment relations consultant on a part-time basis in a month-to-month salaried position. In late 2010 or early 2011, Birch arranged meetings between an investor and GWR’s vice president of exploration. In June 2011, the investor invested $1.8 million in the project. In September 2011, a newly-appointed director of GWR advised Birch that he would not be receiving a finder’s fee in relation to the investment and terminated Birch’s services as an investment relations consultant. Birch sued for breach of the contract to pay a finder's fee or, in the alternative, for damages in quantum meruit. The chambers judge found that the respondent’s efforts had contributed to the investment and that he was not compensated in his role as an investment relations consultant for his work in securing the investment. Accordingly, recovery on the basis of quantum meruit was not precluded on the basis of any contract governing the benefit that was provided by Birch. The appellant argued that the chambers judge erred in making the award because the respondent was paid pursuant to his employment contract for finding the investment and a separate finder’s fee was prohibited by the Securities Act and the policy of the TSX Venture Exchange. ... [read more]