In a unionized workplace do employers have to involve the union in accommodating employees with disabilities? The British Columbia Supreme Court recently answered this question in a case called Telus Communications Inc. v. Telecommunications Workers’ Union, 2015 BCSC 1570. In a decision that should be welcome by employers, the Court held that unions do not have a general right to be notified of, or to participate in, an employer’s attempts to accommodate its employees except in limited circumstances.
Newsletters + Alerts
Local Governments routinely deal with informal requests to access property and licensing files at the “counter” as well as more formal freedom of information requests. Information in those files may typically seem to be “about” the property or business. In some cases, however, the property information will have a personal dimension. As a result, the Local Government may be required to withhold that information without consent to disclose or providing notice under FOIPPA.
On April 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in the highly anticipated case of Daniels v justCanada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (“Daniels”) following years of litigation.
The SCC’s decision recognizes that the over 600,000 people who identify as Métis and non-status Indians in Canada are “Indians” under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and as a result, creates certainty for these groups and greater accountability for both the federal and provincial governments.
The Federal Court of Appeal of Canada, in Annie Piu Kwan Lam v. Chanel S. de R.L et al. 2016 FCA 111, has confirmed the appropriateness of a multiplier-based calculation of nominal damages and significant punitive and exemplary damages, along with determination of counterfeiting cases by way of summary trial even where credibility issues exist.
Spring marks the beginning of Asian Gypsy Moth (“AGM”) season in Canada. The AGM is an invasive species known to cause widespread destruction to vegetation.
After termination, employees have an obligation to act in their best interests. In many situations, this includes the requirement to seek alternative employment and mitigate their loss.
The Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed – again - that adoption and use of a domain name can in fact constitute the mechanism by which a trademark is infringed in Canada: Michaels v. Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc., 2016 FCA 88.
On March 10, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave on a second recent case involving jurisdictional issues and the internet: Douez v. Facebook, Inc., 2015 BCCA 279.