Employee salaries and benefits can be some of the greatest costs borne by a business. As a result, when a company faces financial hardship, they will often terminate positions to reduce their costs.
In the absence of an employment agreement that expressly sets out a notice period upon termination, employees who are terminated without just cause are entitled to a notice period or pay in lieu of notice from their employers in accordance with the common law.
Given its rise in popularity in Canadian employment law over the past year, it is only fitting that the subject of the last Employment and Labour publication for 2015 consider a recent decision relating to this evolving area of human rights law.
The law of drug and alcohol testing in Canada is in a state of evolution. While the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd., 2013 SCC 34, provided important guidance on the strict standard that employers must meet in order to subject employees to random testing, it raised many questions regarding how those principles would be applied to other forms of testing.
Since 2012, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission has adopted a restorative approach as the first option in addressing human rights complaints. If a complaint is referred to a Board of Inquiry, parties have the option to either proceed to a traditional hearing, or agree to a Restorative Board of Inquiry process.
In a recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2015 ABCA 225, it was held that the termination of an employee who tested positive for cocaine in a post-incident drug test was not discriminatory.
The employee, Ms. Steel (“Steel”), made a summary judgment application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia (“BCSC”) for damages for wrongful dismissal from her employment with Coast Capital Savings Credit Union (the “Employer”).
The complainant, Leah Clark, filed a human rights complaint against her employer Bow Valley College alleging discrimination on the ground of family status contrary to the Alberta Human Rights Act. Ms. Clark, who was a nursing instructor, requested and was approved for maternity leave from February 1, 2010 through January 31, 2011. Ms. Clark went on approved sick leave in November 2009. Her child was born on January 2, 2010, almost seven weeks premature. After the child was born, the parties did not communicate about the start or end date of Ms. Clark’s leave.
In Ostrow v. Abacus Management Corp. Mergers and Acquisitions, 2014 BCSC 938 (May 29, 2014), the British Columbia Court Supreme Court assessed the appropriate notice period for a nine-month employee.
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”].