The existence of counterfeit products often signify that a particular brand or product has ‘made it’: it is now sufficiently popular that someone is making knock-offs. Of course, counterfeits are a nuisance for legitimate rights holders and indeed harmful to consumers, who may not get the product they expect (and certainly without the usual warranties, etc. that legitimate products carry).
Last year, we discussed a case which held that preventing an employee from working during a purported “working notice” period can constitute constructive dismissal. The rationale for the decision was that unilaterally preventing an employee from performing their duties (even when they’re still receiving their pay and benefits) is a fundamental change to the terms of employment.
This case provided the Court with the opportunity to address whether there was or should be an over-arching duty of good faith in contract performance, or alternatively if a more limited duty of honest contractual performance should be recognized.
The Supreme Court of Canada has held, in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4, that the right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process that is protected by the fundamental right of freedom of association set out in section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”).
The Supreme Court of Canada has overturned the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench and the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in a new landmark constructive dismissal case: Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10.
The primary question which the Court addressed in this decision is whether and in what circumstances is the interpretation of a contract solely a question of law as opposed to a question of mixed fact and law. The answer was – rarely.
“I know it’s outside the scope but we’ll work out the details after it’s finished.”
The number of workers over the age of 65 has risen significantly in recent years. The increasing number of older employees who are choosing to remain in the workplace, combined with the (near) elimination of mandatory retirement, has raised many considerations that employers have not previously addressed.
In a sole proprietorship, an individual is the sole owner of the business and is personally responsible for all the debts, obligations and liabilities related to the business. All the benefits and the profits from the operation of the business are considered to be those of the sole proprietor.
In the matter of Prevost v. Prevost Estate, 2015 NSSC 10, Justice Michael Wood was called upon to determine who should pay costs flowing out of a contested Court application which sought an accounting by the personal representative of the Prevost Estate.