In its first enforcement action under Canada’s newly minted Anti-Spam Legislation (the “Act” or “CASL”)1, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) issued a Notice of Violation in March pursuant to section 22 of the Act against 3510395 Canada Inc. (“Compu-Finder”) for its alleged violations of CASL.
To appreciate the dangers of varying employment terms, we must start with the foundations of contract law. First, a contract requires that each party receive a benefit (consideration). Second, if the parties agree to a variation of contract, but consideration is not received by both parties, Courts will consider the new contract an “unenforceable unilateral variation”. Third, it is not normally considered a benefit to tell your employee “if you agree to this, you get to keep your job.” That is a benefit your employee was already entitled to under the original terms of employment, and therefore, does not constitute “fresh” consideration.
The Ministry of the Environment has completed a province-wide consultation to examine stakeholder, public, and municipal responses to a proposed Solid Waste Management (SWM) strategy.
On January 1st, 2015, Citizenship and Immigration Canada implemented a new immigration system called “Express Entry”.
The Law Reform Branch of New Brunswick is proposing extending the current procedures permitting advance payments of special damages in automobile cases to non-automobile type claims. The Law Reform Branch of New Brunswick is proposing extending the current procedures permitting advance payments of special damages in automobile cases to non-automobile type claims.
There is another court decision out of the well-known tragedy in Toronto involving five workers who fell from the thirteenth floor of a high-rise building on December 24, 2009. The men’s duties on the date of the accident included pouring concrete on balconies they were using a swing stage to access.
Under human rights legislation, employers have a duty to accommodate an employee’s needs related to a prohibited ground of discrimination to the point of undue hardship. It can often be difficult for employers and their legal counsel to assess when the point of undue hardship is reached.
It is well-established that employees have a legal obligation to minimize damages post-termination by attempting to find comparable alternative employment. If an employee brings a wrongful dismissal action, employers will often include an allegation that the employee failed to mitigate their damages as part of their defence. The onus for proving a failure to mitigate rests on the employer.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the recent common employer case, King v. 1416088 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Danbury Industrial), 2014 ONSC 1445. The Court found that the Defendants were common employers and therefore they were jointly and severally liable for the compensation owing to King.
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.