In Parmar v Tribe Management Inc., the British Columbia Supreme Court recently found that an employee was not constructively dismissed when she was placed on an unpaid leave of absence for refusing to comply with her employer’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy (Policy). The Court held that the employer’s decision to place the employee on the…
Business Operation: British Columbia
B.C. Tribunal Finds that Reduced Benefits for Employees Over Age 65 under Employer’s Benefit Plan is not Discriminatory
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal) recently held that the decision to provide reduced benefits to employees over age 65 under an employer-sponsored benefit plan is not discrimination under the British Columbia Human Rights Code (Code) if the reduced benefits are provided as part of a “bona fide group or employee insurance plan” within…
Appellate Court Reviews “Family Status” Test
The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently clarified the meaning and scope of the term “family status” in Envirocon Environmental Services, ULC v. Suen. This case confirmed the Campbell River test, which imposes a higher standard for establishing discrimination than the often-cited Federal Court of Appeal test in Johnstone, adding to the “family status” interpretation…
Union Need Not be Involved in Every Accommodation Request, Appeal Court Rules (and the Supreme Court Agrees)
Earlier this year, the British Columbia Court of Appeal issued a helpful decision for employers dealing with accommodation issues in a unionized context. On September 7, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the union’s request for leave to appeal from the B.C. Court of Appeal decision. The B.C. Court of Appeal decision considered the…
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…
Appeal Court Affirms Exclusive Jurisdiction Model Applies in CFL Concussion Case
In a case that continues to attract media attention, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Court) upheld a lower court decision that concluded it was without jurisdiction to hear claims brought against the Canadian Football League (CFL), its teams and various individuals relating to concussions alleged to have occurred to a former professional football player,…
What Nexus is Required to Establish a Tribunal’s Jurisdiction over Discriminatory Conduct Arising at a Workplace?
The Supreme Court of Canada will be delivering a decision likely to provide further clarity on the scope of the jurisdiction of British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal) to hear a complaint alleging discrimination regarding employment involving parties who work for different employers. On October 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to…
Federal Government Introduces Amending Legislation to Support CPP Enhancement
On October 6, 2016, the federal government introduced Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, new omnibus legislation to support Canada Pension Plan (CPP) enhancement. If passed, Bill C-26 would, among other things, amend the CPP to: increase the maximum…
New Multi-Jurisdictional Pension Plan Agreement Now in Effect
Parties involved in the administration of pension plans have been waiting for Canadian pension regulators to agree to a new set of rules applicable to plans with members in more than one province. Recently, the governments of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan signed a new Agreement Respecting Multi-Jurisdictional Pension Plans, which took effect July 1, 2016 (2016 Agreement)…
“Bad Customer Service” – or Breach of Human Rights Legislation?
Service-based organizations – such as restaurants – have obligations to their customers under human rights legislation. But how far do these obligations go? Two recent cases help to define the line.