In our globalized world, there are many things we can’t control. Delivering high quality infrastructure and services at the lowest possible cost is decidedly within our control. Citizens don’t want more talk. They want action.
Dealing with employees who take maternity and/or paternity leave and then return to the workplace can be challenging for employers. However, the ability of parents to take maternity and/or paternity leave, and return to their employment, is a legislated right.
Family status cases continue to work through human rights tribunals across the country.
Canadian copyright law is primarily governed by the federal Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42 (the “Act”). The Act, among other things, sets-out the rights covered by copyright, including the length of such rights and how such rights may be licensed, transferred or waived.
Title insurance is available for a wide variety of commercial and residential transactions. In the commercial lending context, a lender may secure a loan against real property of the borrower.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently addressed the enforceability of restrictive covenants: Non-competition and non-solicitation clauses in Specialized Property Evaluation Control Services Ltd. V. Les Evaluations Marc Bourret Appraisals Inc., 2016
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 a decision issued February 29, 2016, Justice Morrison of the NB Court of Queen’s Bench, dismissed an appeal which would have otherwise compelled a University to disclose severance payment information, which was expressly shielded by a confidentiality clause.
Many employers find themselves in a difficult position when they are advised by Service Canada that an employee they terminated for just cause has applied, and been approved, for Employment Insurance (“EI”) benefits.
The recent decision of Fleming v. Massey raises the very interesting question of whether an injured employee can waive his or her rights under Part X of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).