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.
Change is a constant in the human resources world, particularly for Ontario’s school boards. Ongoing developments in the law, whether through new legislation, arbitrations or the courts, and the rapid evolution of best practices create a fast-paced learning environment for human resources professionals, directors of education, supervisory officers and trustees.
In litigation, the battle isn’t always over after the first decision. Protecting your interests throughout subsequent judicial review and appeals processes requires expertise, experience and skilled advocacy.
In this video, Frank Cesario discusses five of the key differentiating factors about Canadian litigation that U.S. organizations should be aware of including: damages, document production and discovery, costs, mandatory mediation and differences in court structure.
Successfully represented a construction company in Divisional Court in responding to an application for judicial review by a union relating to a certification application in the construction industry.
While Canada and the United States are alike in many respects, there are a few key differences in litigation law that U.S. organizations should be aware of if you are considering buying, selling or operating a business in Canada.
On behalf of a financial institution, defeated a judicial review application of a Canadian Human Rights Commission decision in Federal Court.