In my previous blog post, Pre-Existing Impairments Offset from Non-economic Loss Awards and Impact Ongoing Benefits, I discussed the new Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) policy 15-02-03 entitled ‘Pre-Existing Conditions’. This policy defines pre-existing conditions as ‘any condition that existed prior to a work-related injury/disease, and may include injuries, diseases, degenerative conditions, and psychiatric conditions.’ Although the Board issued an administrative practices document entitled ‘Pre-Existing Conditions’, it did not provide any insight into how decision-makers would implement the new policy in the decision-making process.
On May 17, 2016, the government introduced Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, sponsored by Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Liberal). The purpose of this Bill is to include ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ as prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act (‘Act’); more specifically, to protect transgender individuals from discrimination.
On October 13th, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v Schrenk. By granting leave to appeal, the Court is going to weigh in on the extent to which discrimination in employment is predicated on there being a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the victim of harassing behaviour.
It might seem simple, but keeping these rules in mind when deciding to file a grievance can avoid a lot of trouble down the road.
The Federal Court recently overturned a finding of harassment against a CRTC commissioner because of bias. In Shoan v Attorney General [Canada], the CRTC ordered a harassment investigation after a staff member accused a Commissioner of harassing her via email.
With the proliferation of new technology and how entwined it is in our private lives, the courts have recognized the need to protect personal privacy in this sphere. When it comes to the electronic devices we use in the workplace, the law is still developing.
Sustaining a workplace head injury is one of the most serious of all on-the-job injuries. A blow or a jolt to the head can disrupt the normal function of the brain. This is called a brain injury or concussion. The severity of the injury may not be initially evident, therefore it should be reported to your employer and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) right away.
Many areas of the law utilize the Canadian court system and judges within that system to resolve their disputes. Should you ever have to go through this system, you will probably notice that it is very formalized, with many rules attached to every step of litigation. Arbitration, on the other hand, is a completely different way to resolve disputes. Here are three main differences between a trial and an arbitration.
Since February, federal public service employees have been suffering a huge range of payroll problems as a result of the Federal Government switching to the new Phoenix payroll system. These payroll aberrations have put many employees in desperate situations. Unfortunately, these problems are neither new nor unique. Previous case law on these issues indicates that the Federal Government could face serious repercussions as a result of the Phoenix mess.
In December, I wrote about the challenges junior hockey players have faced in their attempt to unionize and enforce their basic employment rights, such as minimum wage. As though these attempts were not difficult enough, provincial governments have been actively trying to make it even harder for players to enforce even their minimum employment rights.