Agatha Suszek is a labour and employment lawyer in Hicks Morley’s Toronto office. She represents and advises employers on a variety of matters related to employment law and human rights. She regularly advises her clients on a number of workplace-related issues including privacy, discrimination, accommodation and discipline. Agatha serves a variety of clients including private companies and public institutions.
Successfully represented an employer before the Federal Court in a judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissing a complaint against the employer as vexatious.
Nigel has a keen interest in trial advocacy. He has developed an expertise in the rules of evidence and litigation strategy, and in applying the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Successfully represented multiple clients in judicial review applications.
Diane provides strategic advice and representation to employers in both the private and public sectors on a wide-range of labour, employment and human rights issues. This includes wrongful dismissal actions, disability related litigation, labour disputes, grievance arbitrations, and human rights and accommodation.
2021 is a big year for faculty bargaining in the University sector. To ensure you are ready, we have put together a webinar that flags the hot topics in the sector as you prepare to head to the bargaining table.
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.
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.
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.