Bill 30 – An Act to Amend the Insurance Act (the “Bill”) was introduced to the New Brunswick Legislature by the Honourable Cathy Rogers on December 16, 2017. The amendments were proposed in order to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to innocent co-insureds for property damage caused by an abusive partner and to enhance the protection of assets for victims of intimate partner violence.
Under the common law, an employee who is terminated without cause is entitled to reasonable notice of termination, or pay in lieu thereof. That entitlement is not free of conditions.
Earlier this year, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the decision of the Trial Division in Evans v Avalon Ford Sales (1996) Limited.
We have recently learned that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice will be re-visiting the January 2016 decision granting default judgment in the case of Jane Doe 464533 v. ND.
This case dealt with the narrow issue of whether the value of future CPP benefits are deductible under an SEF 44 claim.
In the decision of Douthwright v. Duffy, 2015 NBQB 224, the 43 year old Douthwright was injured in a serious roll-over accident. Liability was admitted, but the parties differed on damages.
An employee in Ontario was awarded bonus payments for the applicable reasonable notice period following a without cause termination despite the bonus plan’s express terms that personal and company objectives must be met and the employee must be actively employed.
The Health Authority sued a contractor and the City of Corner Brook with regards to damage to a hospital building and its contents, due to flooding from a sewer back-up. In their pleadings, the defendants admitted that the Authority owned the building.
In the context of a unionized work environment, it is generally the case that when an employee is found to be terminated without cause, the employee is ordered to be reinstated.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal (the “BCCA”), in Frederickson v Newtech Dental Laboratory Inc., 2015 BCCA 357, overturned the trial judge’s finding that Frederickson had failed to mitigate her damages because she refused to accept an offer of re-employment from her employer, Newtech Dental Laboratory (“Newtech”).