On October 9, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd. It confirmed that where terminated employees would be entitled to a bonus or other incentive payments during the reasonable notice period, employers must use clear and unambiguous language to remove or limit their common law rights. The Supreme Court also distinguished between the obligation to provide reasonable notice of termination and a breach of the duty to exercise good faith in the manner of dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently released companion decisions interpreting Ontario’s “anti-SLAPP” legislation. The decisions, Bent et al. v. Platnick, et al. and 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, et al. were the first to consider the new statutory regime under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. The anti-SLAPP (“strategic litigation against…
The January 28, 2020 issue of Labour Notes® features an article authored by Hicks Morley lawyer Nadine Zacks. This article explores one of the complications within the Canada Labor Code and the recent resolution of the Supreme Court that gives a clear parameter to employers as far they are legally responsible in relation to work locations and gives an overturn to the decision of the Federal Court that imposed unmanageable and impractical obligations.
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.
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that an employer’s work place inspection obligations under the Canada Labour Code (Code) only extend to that part of the work place over which it has physical control, and not to locations beyond its control where its employees may be engaged in work. This decision is welcome news for employers that may require employees to work outside of the employer’s physical location.
Hicks Morley’s Jessica Toldo authored an article in Employment and Labour Law Reporter titled “Pay Equity Compliance: An Update From The Supreme Court of Canada.” The article discusses two decisions by The Supreme Court of Canada pertaining to Quebec’s Pay Equity Act (Act) that serve as a reminder to all employers of the importance of complying with their governing pay equity legislation….
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.
On March 15, 2018 the Supreme Court of Canada announced its decision to dismiss the application for leave to appeal in the Arland Bruce concussion litigation matter against the Canadian Football League (CFL)…
We are pleased to bring you the final 2016 edition of the Federal Post, our newsletter designed exclusively for federally regulated employers…
In an important decision for federally regulated employers, Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada has found the “unjust dismissal” provisions of Part III of the Canada Labour Code (Code) prohibit “without cause” dismissal of non-managerial, non-unionized employees with at least 12 months consecutive service, thereby allowing those employees to access the remedial relief (reasons, reinstatement, equitable relief) available under the Code.