Arbitration Decision Rules Employer Not Vicariously Liable for Employee’s Privacy...
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.
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.
The definition of “family status” under human rights legislation continues to be one of the hottest topics in Canadian employment law.
What happens when an employee files a constructive dismissal action against their employer, but keeps coming to work? Can the employer take the position that the employee has resigned, or must the employer allow the employee to keep working indefinitely? This issue was recently considered by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Garner v Bank of Nova Scotia, 2015 NSSC 122.
In the matter of Spence v. BMO Trust Company, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to set aside a Will for public policy reasons. The evidence suggested that the deceased disinherited his daughter because the father of the daughter’s child was Caucasian. After reviewing the evidence and applicable legal principles, the Court concluded that the Will was void and should be set aside.