Last month, the Federal Court of Appeal released a decision of importance to all federally regulated employers. In Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. v. Wilson, 2015 FCA 17, the Federal Court of Appeal explained that a dismissal without cause is not necessarily an “unjust dismissal” pursuant to s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code.
Turner v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Legal Aid Commission), 2014 NLTD (G) 156, is a new case out of Newfoundland and Labrador addressing applicable damages in the context of a wrongful dismissal from employment.
It can be surprisingly difficult for an employer to rely on statements such as “I quit” to establish that an employee resigned, particularly if the employee later indicates that they want to return to work. Courts require proof of a clear intention to resign in order to find that an employee terminated their employment. While the statement “I quit” may seem clear, courts will inquire into the circumstances in which the statement was made in order to determine whether the employee actually resigned.
Despite the price of oil hovering near $50 per barrel, Shell Canada (“Shell”) has announced it will continue exploring off the coast of Nova Scotia. Shell, along with its partners in the Shelburne Basin exploration project, ConocoPhillips and Suncor, will adhere to their existing plans for this year and the next. Exploratory offshore drilling is expected to commence in 2015.
In this recent case, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia held that the Warden of the Municipality of the District of West Hants did not breach the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (the “Act”) despite acting as a “go-between” between the Municipality and a friend in the purchase of a lot for an “apparently excessive price”.
Under what circumstances and at what point in time can or should the Court remove a lawful Attorney appointed under an Enduring Power of Attorney? This was the main issue which Justice Rosinski was required to address in the matter of Vernon v. Sutcliffe, 2014 NSSC 376.
Supreme Court of Canada to Consider Freedom of Association in Collective Bargaining Process provided background details regarding an upcoming decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”). In short, currently the RCMP is prohibited from unionization.
Canadian copyright law is primarily governed by the federal Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42 (the “Act”). The Act was subject to some significant amendments by the Copyright Modernization Act, S.C. 2012, c. 20 (the “CMA”), and while most of the changes made by the CMA have already been in force for some time, the notice and notice regime created by the CMA for allegations of infringement only came into force in January 2015.
It is expected that on Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada will render a decision which will determine whether RCMP members have the right to form an independent association to handle collective bargaining with its employer, the Federal Government. Currently, RCMP members are represented by the Staff Relations Representation Program, an association imposed on them under the RCMP’s regulations.
We have written a number of times regarding cases that significantly depart from the so-called one month per year of service rule of thumb. Yet another case has illustrated the risk an employer runs in assuming their liability will be capped at one month per year of service.