In this FTR Now, which focuses on health and safety issues, we discuss two recent cases from the Ontario Court of Justice which suggest that there should be a shift in the approach to sentencing corporations convicted under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
In this Update, we discuss a recent decision of Arbitrator Nyman with respect to what constitutes a collective agreement and which re-affirms the longstanding principle that the interpretation of a collective agreement is first to be based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the written words. We also discuss a topical case with respect to a grievor’s obligation to produce arguably relevant medical documentation in the context of a grievance arbitration – notwithstanding the contractual restrictions that may exist.
The Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a significant decision that clarifies whether a court should exercise its judicial review jurisdiction where decisions for which review is sought are private, not public, in character. Learn more in this Raising the Bar.
In This Issue Sexual Harassment: Best Practices for Proactive Employers and Service Providers FTRQ&A – Customer-to-Customer Harassment: Service Provider Liability Questions, Answered Tips for Conducting Harassment Investigations Sexual Harassment and Your Organization: Best Practice Tips for Boards of Directors For Your Workplace, At Your Workplace: Hicks Morley’s On-Site Learn-by-Doing Training Programs Featured Articles Sexual Harassment:…
In a decision dated February 20, 2018, Arbitrator William Kaplan dismissed a grievance brought by the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) concerning a teacher’s entitlement to sick leave when, following a voluntary unpaid non-statutory leave of absence, she is unable to return to work due to an intervening illness or injury.
In a recent decision, U.M. v. York Region District School Board, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) dismissed an application brought against the Respondent school board which alleged that it had discriminated against two students (U.M and M.M.) in the delivery of educational services. This decision confirms that in special education situations, a school board is obliged to act in the interests of the students with respect to educational decisions; while it should communicate with parents, those educational decisions are not generally subject to parental control. Learn more in this School Board Update.
In This Issue 10 Top Developments in Human Resources Law in 2017 The Road Ahead: Key 2018 Implementation Dates Cross-Border Expertise Featured Articles 10 Top Developments in Human Resources Law in 2017 By: Amanda Lawrence-Patel 2017 was quite a year for news – with harassment revelations that have rocked institutions across North America, a new…
In this edition, we bring you quick summaries of key cases relating to limits on partial summary judgment, the importance of pleadings and the issues raised by inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents.
In an important decision which weighs competing rights, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal on the basis that the appellant had failed to provide any evidence that the inclusion of what he referred to as “false teachings” in the school curriculum interfered with or violated his or his children’s religious freedom. Learn more in this School Board Update.
In This Issue Extended EI Benefits – Top 3 Ways Your Workplace Could be Affected FTRQ&A – Chronic Mental Stress Pension Plan Funding Reform: At the Precipice Featured Lawyer – Stephanie J. Kalinowski Pension, Benefits & Executive Compensation Featured Articles Extended EI Benefits – Top 3 Ways Your Workplace Could be Affected By: Alyson Frankie and…