The Supreme Court of Canada recently considered the common law doctrine of constructive dismissal in Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services, where a majority of the Court (with two justices concurring in the result) concluded that placing an employee on an indefinite administrative suspension with pay constituted constructive dismissal. It found that even where…
Practice Area: Litigation
Supreme Court of Canada On Pregnancy and Parental Leave Top-Ups
The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld a decision of a British Columbia arbitrator which had found that denying birth mothers entitlement to parental supplemental employment (“SEB” or “top-up”) benefits where they had received pregnancy SEB plan benefits was discriminatory. The issue before the arbitrator turned on an interpretation of the collective agreement in place…
Solicitor-Client Privilege Does Not Necessarily Arise Where Lawyer Copied on Internal HR Email
Is an email sent by a human resources employee and copied to the employer’s lawyer covered by solicitor-client privilege? The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently answered this question in Jacobson v. Atlas Copco Canada Inc. This action involved a plaintiff’s claim for wrongful dismissal. His employment had been terminated for allegedly participating in a…
Court of Appeal Holds that Counsel May Review Draft Expert Witness Reports
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has clarified the law in deciding that it is appropriate for counsel to review and discuss draft reports of expert witnesses. In so doing, the Court rejected the reasoning in an earlier trial court decision. In Moore v. Getahun, the Court of Appeal concluded that the practice of counsel…
Court Upholds Two-Year Limit on LOE Benefits for Workers Age 63 or Older
The Ontario Divisional Court’s recent decision upholding the two-year limitation on loss of earnings (“LOE”) benefits for workers age 63 and older should reassure employers that Ontario courts take notice that LOE benefits are not meant to be paid for life. Section 43(1)(c) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (“WSIA”) limits LOE entitlement for…
Divisional Court Finds Arbitrator’s Approach to Pre-Access Drug and Alcohol Testing Reasonable
The Divisional Court has dismissed a judicial review application of an arbitration decision that held that pre-access drug and alcohol testing was contrary to the parties’ collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code. While the Court declined to comment on the Code, it upheld Arbitrator Surdykowski’s finding that the applicant had violated the collective…
Raising the Bar – Eighth Edition
Dear Readers, With the first big snowfall and the coming of the holiday season, we’re thrilled to bring you the Winter 2014 edition of Raising the Bar. This time, we’re doing something a little different. Rather than our usual format, we’re devoting this entire issue to a topic that clients have been increasingly asking us…
The Duty of Good Faith and Honesty: An Important Foundational Decision by The Supreme Court Of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued a significant decision on the duty of good faith in the law of commercial contracts. In Bhasin v. Hrynew, the Court recognized good faith contractual performance as a general organizing principle of contract law and recognized a new “duty of honest performance” in the fulfillment of contractual obligations….
Divisional Court Upholds Jan Wong’s Obligation to Repay Settlement Funds for Breach of Confidentiality
The Ontario Divisional Court has unanimously upheld Arbitrator Louisa Davie’s decision that Jan Wong breached her confidentiality obligations under a settlement with her former employer, The Globe and Mail (the “Globe”) and is bound by the repayment obligation she agreed to as part of the settlement. The Court held that Ms Wong lacked standing to…
Ontario Court Voids Termination Provision for Non-Compliance with the Employment Standards Act
In Miller v. A.B.M. Canada Inc., the Ontario Superior Court again nullified a termination provision in an employment contract because it did not strictly comply with the requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”). The plaintiff worked for the defendant for 17 months in a middle management position at an annual salary of $135,000.The…