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.
A recent decision of the Ontario Grievance Settlement Board raises the interesting question of an employer’s vicarious liability for an employee’s privacy breach.
In a unionized workplace, a union and an employer may come to an agreement as to the job duties and qualifications for various positions, in an attempt to avoid future disagreements. This is exactly what has occurred in nursing homes in New Brunswick. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (“CUPE”), the New Brunswick Association of Nursing Homes Inc. and the Government of New Brunswick Department of Social Development formed a tri-parte task force to conduct a Joint Job Evaluation for each CUPE position within the nursing home sector to determine the key job functions and qualifications for each position.
In this decision (released on May 12, 2015), the Court of Appeal limits a municipality’s jurisdiction to regulate quarries and declares the subject by-law invalid.
Off-duty conduct of employees has been a hot topic in the news recently. In the age of round-the-clock social media, inappropriate employee conduct can have far-reaching effects on an employer’s brand and reputation.
The decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Bank of Montreal v Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55 (“Marcotte”), on September 19, 2014, has significant implications with respect to consumer protection requirements in the banking industry. The Marcotte decision highlights the important role that compliance with both provincial and federal consumer protection legislation has within the banking industry.
On May 12th, BP Canada (“BP”) held an information session for potential suppliers in connection with its ongoing offshore exploration program. BP is currently processing seismic data collected over the previous year and is still targeting 2017 to begin exploratory drilling. BP has awarded the contract for an Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) to Stantec and the EIA is currently underway.
The legality and enforceability of policies that attempt to regulate a person’s appearance have recently garnered much media attention. Recent headlines have focused on dress codes in the public school system; however, much of the discussion applies to similar policies in the workplace. The burning question in the minds of many employers is: can I regulate the appearance of my employees in my workplace? The answer, of course, is dependent on a number of factors.