Klyn v. Pentax Canada Inc., 2024 BCSC 372, is a recent Supreme Court of British Columbia decision, where the court held that the Defendant employer, Pentax Canada Inc. (the “Defendant”) couldn’t rely on the termination clause in the employment contract, as its conduct following termination of the Plaintiff employee, Brad Klyn amounted to a repudiation of the contract. This case is important because it is part of a growing body of caselaw that makes it difficult to enforce termination clauses in the employment law context. Facts The following are the pertinent facts of the case: The Plaintiff ..read more

1605511 Alberta Ltd. v Director of Employment Standards, 2024 ABESAB 7 (Johnson, Vice Chair), is an Alberta employment standards decision where the labour relations board concluded that several different corporate entities were a “single employer” of an employee, so that he could recover money against the one that could actually pay. This decision is important because the “single employer” mechanism at Section 80(1) of the Employment Standards Code does not get used very often and this case provides some direction on how and when it applies.   Facts The following were the facts summarized ..read more

Learn about the complexities of human rights law and workplace discrimination in Alberta with this comprehensive guide. Human rights law is an essential component of any fair and just society. In Alberta, employers have a legal obligation to create a discrimination-free workplace that respects the rights and dignity of all employees. Understanding the intricacies of human rights law in Alberta is crucial for both employers and employees. In this comprehensive guide, we will explore the key aspects of human rights law and workplace discrimination in Alberta, including the legal framew ..read more

JD v City of Calgary, 2024 AHRC 49 (K Scott), is an Alberta human rights interim decision dealing with the Human Rights Tribunal’s own accommodations of complainants during hearings. This case is important in Alberta because there are not many cases dealing with the Commission’s own accommodation process. Facts The following were the facts summarized by the AHRT: The complainant requested the following accommodations for his human rights tribunal hearing: Recording of the tribunal proceedings for the purpose of a memory aid Full or hybrid option of his attendance in-person during the hearing ..read more

Penn v. St. Stephen’s College, 2024 ABCA 99 (Rowbotham, Pentelechuk, Ho, JJA) provides a strong reaffirmation of the extent of an individual’s entitlement to procedural fairness in the context of post-secondary suspensions expulsions. Importantly, the Alberta Court of Appeal’s reasons also extend to any administrative or regulatory proceedings that impact an individual’s ability to work. In either case, Penn affirms that an administrative tribunal or body must afford the individual the highest degree of procedural fairness – including, depending on the context and the statutory scheme at play ..read more

Calhoon v J. Quartly Trucking Ltd. (February 14, 2024) Grande Prairie 2204-00155 (ABKB), is an unreported Alberta Court of King’s Bench decision where a labourer with a bit over 6 years of service was awarded 8 months notice. This case is important in Alberta because general labourers have historically not gotten fantastic severance awards, and because the “mitigation of damages” analysis is more favorable to employees and less favorable to employers than most of the provincial case law. The lawyer for the successful plaintiff in this decision was Lluc Cerda. This is an unreported decision.&nb ..read more

Oliva, Pascoe, and Strong v Gursoy, 2024 AHRC 45 (K Scott) is a shocking human rights decision involving three complainants who were found to have been sexually harassed and retaliated against for filing human rights complaints, among other things. This case is very important in Alberta because: It contains the highest award of general damages for pain and suffering in Alberta history; It is actually three (3) complainants and more than three complaints in one; and, It provides guidance on the “continuing contravention” exception to the ordinary 1 year human rights limitation It provides guid ..read more

In Dufault v The Corporation of the Township of Ignace, 2024 ONSC 1029 the Ontario Supreme Court held in favour of a dismissed employee in a Summary Judgment application finding the termination clause of a fixed term employment contract was not enforceable and awarding damages for the remainder of the fixed term. This decision further illustrates the many ways a termination clause may be held unenforceable and serves as a reference both for attacking an existing termination clause and in drafting a termination clause that does not violate the minimum employment standards. Currently this decisi ..read more

In Zajicek v Intrapac Canada Corporation (Unreported, Jan 8, 2024) (ABKB) (Funk), the Alberta Court of King’s Bench found that summary trial was appropriate in a constructive dismissal case, despite assertions by the employer that there were major issues requiring credibility findings. The lawyer for the successful party on this application (the employee) was Daniel Hermann. This case involved summary trials, but it could still be important for use in the new Streamlined Trial process, especially in the employment law context. This case is currently unreported.  However, any lawyer or oth ..read more

In United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Local Number 7226 v Certain Employees of Vitafoam Products Canada, 2024 ALRB 17(Schlesinger, Chair), the ALRB denied the Steelworkers’ Union application alleging that management had tainted a Revocation application brought by employees. In unionized workplaces, an employee may bring a revocation petition under the Alberta Labour Relations Code to have a union de-certified in the workplace, meaning that the workplace transitions from a unionized environment to a non-union environment. Understandably, unions tend to view revocation petitions with hosti ..read more