In its recent decision SAIA v. Carleton University, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“Tribunal”) found that the decision by Carleton University to remove certain posters from its campus was not discriminatory, nor was it driven by discriminatory animus against Palestinian students. The University had a policy that posters must be approved by the appropriate…
Publication Name: Case In Point
Alberta Court of Appeal Considers Restrictive Covenants and Fiduciary Duties
In Evans v. The Sports Corporation, the Alberta Court of Appeal provides some important guidance on what classes of employees will be considered fiduciaries and what type of conduct will constitute solicitation of clients. Richard Evans was employed for six years by The Sports Corporation (“TSC”) as a sports agent responsible for TSC prospects and…
Arbitrator Considers Employer’s Ability to Collectively Bargain Changes to Retiree Benefits
In TRW Canada Ltd. and Thompson Products Employees’ Assn. (Retiree Benefits) (Re), collectively bargained changes to vested retiree benefits were found to have been made without lawful authority. The changes had been proposed by the employees’ association (“Association”), following a particularly hard round of collective bargaining, and after the employer threatened to close one of…
Finding that Non-Worker Injury Reportable Under OHSA Overturned by Court of Appeal
Today, the Court of Appeal for Ontario rendered its long anticipated decision in Blue Mountain Resorts Limited v. Ontario (Labour). It overturned a finding of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, upheld on judicial review by the Divisional Court, that the drowning of a Blue Mountain hotel guest in the hotel’s swimming pool was reportable under…
Court of Appeal for Ontario Finds Restrictive Covenants Unreasonable and Unenforceable
In Martin v. ConCreate USL Limited Partnership, a decision released yesterday, the Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that the restrictive covenants included in sale of business agreements were unenforceable. Among other things, the Court found that the duration for the covenants was unreasonable because it was “for an indeterminate period, and there is no fixed,…
Court of Appeal Upholds Finding that One Health and Safety Violation Did Not Constitute Just Cause for Termination
In its recent decision Plester v. PolyOne Canada Inc., the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that one violation of a health and safety rule did not constitute just cause for the termination of a long term supervisory employee. The plaintiff was employed as a line supervisor and had worked for the employer for 17…
Supreme Court of Canada Renders Decision in Indalex
Today, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers. The decision contains important findings with respect to, among other matters, the fiduciary duties of plan administrators, the reach of the statutory deemed trust provisions of the Ontario Pension Benefits Act, and the priority given to pension…
Indalex Pension Decision to be Rendered Friday
On Friday, February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada will be rendering its decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC et al. v. United Steelworkers et al. The appeal relates to an April 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which granted “super-priority” to pension funding deficits in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceeding….
Can Hospitals Impose a Dress Code that Prohibits Large Tattoos and Excessive Body Piercings in a Unionized Environment?
Apparently not, according to Arbitrator Slotnick’s recent award in Ottawa Hospital v CUPE. This award concluded that a hospital’s dress code policy was unenforceable as it required employees to cover up large tattoos and prohibited “visible, excessive body piercings.” The hospital argued that the dress code was minimally intrusive and its goal was to improve…
An Employment Contract, A Without Cause Termination and the Availability of “Unjust Dismissal” Protection
Klein and The Royal Canadian Mint, a recent adjudication award made under the Canada Labour Code, affirms the proposition that the unjust dismissal provisions do not protect all employees from termination without cause, particularly where such terminations are conducted in accordance with a binding employment contract. In this case, the complainant had signed an employment…