Access To and Use of PPE Governed by CMOH Directive 5: An Inherent Balancing Act Confirmed by Arbitrator Stout

In an award dated May 4, 2020, Arbitrator Stout addressed, among other things, critical aspects of the CMOH’s Directives respecting access to and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). In this HR HealthCheck, we provide an overview of this significant award (Award), a decision of notable impact to health care providers and health care workers alike, in both the Hospital and Long-Term Care sectors.

Alberta Appellate Court Renders Significant Decision on University Autonomy and Expressive Rights

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.

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Decision on Post Age 65 Benefits Raises Important Issues

The recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) in Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board raises important issues about the provision of benefits to employees aged 65 and older. In Talos, the Tribunal found that section 25 (2.1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code), which effectively permits employers to cease providing employees with benefits at age 65, is unconstitutional. More specifically, the Tribunal held that this age-based “carve out” from Code protection violates the equality guarantee under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit.

Privacy Rules Around Non-Disclosure of Administrative Records Declared Unconstitutional

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently held that the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) violates section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter), finding that it goes too far to protect the privacy of parties, witnesses and others in matters heard by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, Ontario Labour Relations Board and other statutory tribunals. Learn more in this FTR Now.

Supreme Court of Canada Recognizes Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Digital Communications

There has been significant discussion of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in R v Jones and R v Marakah – cases in which the Court recognized a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages that police obtained from others. In Jones, the police obtained messages from a telecom company and in Marakah the police…

Ontario Court Confirms that “Location Matters” in Charter Claims

In  Thain v. Pattison Outdoor Advertising LP, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice stayed an Ontario resident’s freedom of expression claim under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter), finding that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation and that “[t]he interests of justice overwhelmingly favour Manitoba as the appropriate and…