In our first HR Healthcheck of 2020, we discuss two cases you need to know about. The first deals with whether a scheduled medical procedure under conscious sedation falls within the “sick leave” provisions of HOODIP. The second case considers management rights under the central CUPE collective agreement and a Hospital’s right to transfer employees.
In this Federal Post, we look at the recently released study on modernizing labour standards in the federally regulated private sector, the second such study in the last few years.
The case of Yenovkian v. Gulian is a significant case that, for the first time in Canada, has recognized a new privacy tort – “publicity placing a person in a false light.” The decision was decided by Justice Kristjanson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and released in late 2019. The case arose out…
2019 was a busy year in the College sector. We thought it would be useful to review some of the significant human resource issues from 2019 as these cases may impact your approaches in 2020. Curl up by the fire and have a read. Happy New Year!
Daily news coverage has put the Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV or Coronavirus) in the spotlight. Just this morning Ontario health officials announced that another “presumptive” case of the new Coronavirus has been discovered in Toronto, which, if confirmed, would make it the second instance of the illness in Canada. Both cases are still currently presumptive and there have not yet been any confirmed cases of the virus in Canada…
As we learn more about the Novel Coronavirus (2019-vCoV or Coronavirus), employers will no doubt be contemplating the potential implications of this virus on their workplaces. We have set out below some of the emerging questions that employers may have right now and our answers and guidelines for how to address these issues.
In December 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada established a new framework that is designed to guide courts on applying the standard of review in judicial review applications. The Court’s long-awaited “trilogy” of cases in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov and the two companion appeals heard together in Bell Canada v Canada (Attorney General) (collectively, Vavilov) represents an express departure and evolution from the framework that the Court set out in previous cases. Consequently, these decisions will affect the standard upon which Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) appeals will be heard by the courts.
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that an employer’s work place inspection obligations under the Canada Labour Code (Code) only extend to that part of the work place over which it has physical control, and not to locations beyond its control where its employees may be engaged in work. This decision is welcome news for employers that may require employees to work outside of the employer’s physical location.
Just prior to the end of 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada established a new framework that is designed to guide lower courts on applying the standard of review in judicial review applications. The Court’s long-awaited “trilogy” of cases in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov and the two companion appeals heard together in Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) represents an express departure and evolution from the framework that the Court set out in the case of Dunsmuir decided over a decade ago.
Universities value their autonomy, and though subject to court supervision, have long been accorded significant leeway in managing their academic and non-academic affairs. The Alberta Court of Appeal recently issued a decision that is controversial in its recognition that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms governs an Alberta university’s control over the use of its space. This decision conflicts with jurisprudence in other jurisdictions and may be challenged, but it does highlight the pressures on university autonomy today, particularly as they pertain to matters involving free expression.