So, you want to launch a business in Nova Scotia? Well, whether you want to disrupt the tech sector, break the Internet or brew some sour beer, you are going to need to understand what it means to be an employer subjected to a litany of employment laws.
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.
Accommodating the extended absence of an employee who is off work due to illness or disability can be a difficult task for employers.
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 complainant was a unionized employee and his Collective Agreement provided top-up benefits to adoptive parents, but not to biological parents. The Board of Inquiry concluded that the distinction in benefits constituted discrimination on the basis of family status.
In Evans v Avalon Ford (1996) Limited, 2015 NLTD(G) 100, the employee, Mr. Evans, was Fleet Manager at the Avalon Ford auto dealership, the largest Ford dealership in Atlantic Canada (the “Dealership”), for more than 12 years. On the morning of Thursday, June 10, 2010, a meeting was called by Mr. Wilkins, the Dealership’s owner to discuss an error regarding the delivery of a commercial vehicle without appropriate paperwork being completed.
In Adekayode v Halifax (Regional Municipality), 2015 CanLII 13866, a Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry recently considered a complaint alleging that an employer’s failure to provide a top-up of employment insurance benefits for biological parents during a parental leave was discriminatory.