July 15, 2014

Employer’s Unreasonable Increase in Duties and Response to Employee Concerns...

Often constructive dismissal cases involving a change in duties arise from an employer’s unilateral reduction in an employee’s duties. However, Damaso v. PSI Peripheral Solutions Inc., 2013 ONSC 6923 is just the opposite. An employee alleged that an employer’s unilateral increase in his duties resulted in his constructive dismissal.

Wal-Mart’s Store Closure Contrary to Quebec Labour Code

On June 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 503 v. Wal‑Mart Canada Corp., 2014 SCC 45 after a decade-long litigation battle between the parties. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of a Quebec arbitrator who determined that the closure of the Wal-Mart location was contrary to s. 59 of the Quebec Labour Code (the statutory freeze provision).

Use it or Lose it: Provide Gifts, Inc. V. MJB...

The recent (and brief) decision of the Registrar of Trade-marks in Provide Gifts, Inc. V. MJB Marketing Inc. 2014 TMOB 15 should serve as a reminder to businesses of the potential power of expungement proceedings, and why the existence of a registration won’t always bar another’s use and registration of a similar mark in a similar field.

Workers’ Compensation May Have to Provide Benefits for Stress

The New Brunswick Workers Compensation Act provides no fault compensation to employees who suffer injury or disease arising from their employment. However, the legislation restricts employees from claiming benefits related to mental stress. An employee can only receive workers’ compensation benefits if the stress is the result of “an acute reaction to a traumatic event” that arises out of and in the course of employment.

June 24, 2014

Permissive Non-Competition Clauses in Employment Contracts – Case Law Update

The British Columbia Court of Appeal addressed a permissive non-competition clause in an employment contract in its recent decision of Rhebergen v. Creston Veterinary Clinic Ltd., 2014 BCCA 97 (March 12, 2014). The clause required a payment of money to the employer if the employee chose to compete.

Cracking Down: Canadian Court Emphasizes Compliance with Export Procedures

Over recent years there has been an increase in the enforcement of legislation aimed at businesses exporting their goods or services overseas. Recently, an Alberta company was fined $90,000.00 for mistakenly shipping $15.00 worth of prohibited equipment to Iran in contravention of the federal Special Economic Measures Act (the “SEMA”). The following is a general overview of that case.

June 17, 2014

Supreme Court of Canada considers whether Equity Partner is an...

John McCormick was an equity partner of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP (the “Partnership”) for more than 30 years. As he approached his 65th birthday, Mr. McCormick brought a human rights claim against the Partnership alleging that the mandatory retirement provision in the firm’s Partnership Agreement constituted age discrimination contrary to the British Columbia Human Rights Code (the “Code”). Mr. McCormick’s claim raised the question: is an equity partner also an employee?

June 9, 2014

Amendments to the Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Relations Act Remove...

Newfoundland and Labrador’s Labour Relation Act, RSNL 1990, c L-1 (the “Act”), has been amended by Bill 22, which passed into law on June 5, 2014. The amendments replace section 47(1) of the Act which allowed for the certification of a union as the bargaining agent for a group of employees without a vote where 65% of those employees had signed union cards.

When Does an Employer Need to Accommodate Childcare Obligations?

On May 2, 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal clarified that an employer who fails to accommodate an employee’s childcare obligations may be found to have discriminated against the employee on the basis of family status: Canada (Attorney General) v Johnstone, 2014 FCA 110 [“Johnstone”].

May 27, 2014

Beware of the One Month Per Year of Service “Rule”...

A recent post cautioned employers to beware of using the one month per year of service “rule of thumb”. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has once again affirmed that, depending on the circumstances, courts are willing to award short service employees significantly more than one month per year of service.