162 Results

Case In Point

Employees on LTD Not Automatically Entitled to Continued Employment for Purposes of Maintaining Group Benefits Coverage

In a recent decision, Corporation of the Township of Langley v. Canada Union of Public Employees, Local 403, the British Columbia Labour Relations Board set aside and ordered the reconsideration of an arbitration decision in which the Arbitrator had ruled that terminations of several employees on long-term disability (LTD) was discriminatory. Each of the terminated…

Case In Point

Ontario Court of Appeal Confirms Harassment by Town Resident Outside Scope of Workplace Harassment Policy

In a recent decision, Rainy River (Town) v. Olsen, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision of an application judge which refused to grant a declaration that a resident of the Town of Rainy River had violated the Town’s workplace harassment policy when he harassed and defamed the mayor, council members and staff. The…

Case In Point

Court Orders Condo Resident to Cease and Desist her Uncivil Conduct Toward the Condo Corporation’s Staff

In a brief decision, York Condominium Corp No 163 v Robinson, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently ordered a resident/owner of a condominium unit (Resident) to cease and desist from “uncivil or illegal conduct” that violated the rules of the condominium corporation (Condo) and the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). The dispute in…

Case In Point

Appellate Court: Term “Probation” in Employment Contract Has A Clear Legal Meaning

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently confirmed that the term “probation” in an employment contract has a clear legal meaning. It upheld the termination of an employee during a six-month probationary period, who had been dismissed with payment of his applicable entitlements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). Common law has long recognized a…

Case In Point

Supreme Court of Canada Grants Worldwide Injunction Against Google

On June 28, 2017, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada granted a worldwide interlocutory injunction against Google, requiring it to de-index websites of a distributor, Datalink. Datalink was using those websites to illegally sell intellectual property of another company and was also in breach of several court orders. The decision indicates that Canadian…

Case In Point

Court Disapproves of Employee’s Surreptitious Recordings of Meetings with Employer

In Hart v Parrish & Heimbecker, a trial judge recently upheld the dismissal of a 42-year old Merchandising Manager (Plaintiff) with 15 of years service, for a series of separate incidents that he had with peers and subordinates. The Plaintiff had engaged in inappropriate conduct which included repeatedly yelling at employees, displaying excessive anger and…

Case In Point

An “Uncomfortable” Workplace Interaction – or Harassment and Discrimination under the Human Rights Code?

In dismissing this human rights application as having no reasonable prospect of success, Vice Chair Hart made helpful comments with respect to the Human Rights Code (Code) and the role of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) in dealing with “uncomfortable” workplace interactions. In short, the decision stands for the proposition that, depending on…

Case In Point

The Supreme Court’s Decision on Proving Mental Injury and its Implications for Employers

In a recent decision, Saadati v. Moorhead, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that proof of a recognized psychiatric injury is no longer necessary to award damages for mental injuries caused by negligence. Although this finding was made in the context of a personal injury case, it may have implications for employers. The plaintiff/appellant…

Case In Point

Sexual Assault: When is an Employer Vicariously Liable?

In a recent decision, Ivic v. Lakovic, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a claim against a taxi company whose driver allegedly sexually assaulted the appellant. The Court found that the alleged acts were only coincidentally connected to the taxi company and the company did not confer any power on the driver over the appellant….