Since November 24, 2020, people in British Columbia have been required to wear face coverings indoors, subject to certain exemptions: Ministerial Orders M425 and M012, ss. 3‐4 [Orders]. Among other things, the Orders are premised on face coverings helping to prevent, respond to or alleviate the spread of COVID‐19, when used with other protective measures.

The appellant is pursuing an action arising out of the termination of his employment against the respondents: three corporations alleged to have been his common employer and two individual corporate directors. In addition to claiming wrongful dismissal damages and punitive damages, the appellant claims against the individual respondents unpaid vacation pay under s. 81 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”) and s. 131 of Ontario’s Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16 (“OBCA”), and relief from oppression under s. 248 of the OBCA.

The appellant, Guestlogix Inc., appeals from a judgment finding that the respondent, Marina Antchipalovskaia, is entitled to twelve months notice for dismissal without cause.

The Employment Standards Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) upheld a determination that three taxi drivers, the individual respondents, were employees of the appellants, Beach Place Ventures Ltd. and Black Top Cabs Ltd. The appellants contend that the Tribunal’s decision was patently unreasonable. The chambers judge who considered the appellants’ application for judicial review concluded that the Tribunal’s decision was not patently unreasonable and dismissed their petition. For the reasons that follow, I too am of the view that the Tribunal’s decision was not patently unreasonable and I would dismiss the appeal.

Thomas Bryant, Natalie Dzioba and Silke Larison, the three individual appellants, were all long-term employees of the respondent Parkland School Division (the employer). Two were hired in 1999 and the third in 2004. All three signed a standard form employment contract, the terms of which had been drafted by the employer. All three employees were terminated without cause by the employer on June 2, 2014 and each received 60 days’ notice. The employees brought an action claiming notice above and beyond the 60 day period in accordance with the common law requirement of reasonable notice.

The plaintiff, Jacquelyn Humphrey (“Ms. Humphrey”), claims wrongful dismissal against the defendant Menē Inc. (“Menē”). She brought a motion for summary judgment claiming damages for wrongful dismissal, aggravated damages for mental distress and punitive damages.

Ms. Hussey appeals from a decision of the Federal Court (Bell Canada v. Hussey, 2020 FC 795, [2020] F.C.J. No. 518 (QL) – the FC Decision) dismissing an application for judicial review of the decision of adjudicator McNamee (the Adjudicator) appointed under the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985 c. L-2 (the Code). The Adjudicator found that Ms.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers filed a grievance on behalf of one of its members who was refused employment when he failed to pass a drug test. The grievor, a general labourer, had disclosed that he used medically authorized cannabis to manage chronic pain. The focus of this appeal is the employer’s duty to accommodate the grievor’s disability.

The Plaintiff was terminated from his employment by the Defendant without cause. He sues for pay in lieu of notice, commissions and bonuses which he says are owing to him, and holiday and vacation pay.

Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Equality rights -- Canada Pension Plan gradually discousurvivor’s benefits for able-bodied claimants without dependent children until threshold minimum age of 35 reand delaying those benefits until retirement age -- Survivors benefits delayed to retirement age -- Appellant bodied, under 35 and without dependent children -- Whether denial of benefits discrimination on basis of aWhether denial of benefits an infringement of Charter’s equality provision -- Canadian Charter of RightsFreedoms, s. 15 -- Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-8, ss. 44(1)(d), 58.

Labour relations — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Human rights dispute arising from collective agreement — Unionized employee suspended after attending work under influence of alcohol and later terminated for breaching abstinence agreement — Employee filing human rights complaint alleging that employer failed to adequately accommodate disability — Whether exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrator appointed under collective agreement and empowered by provincial labour legislation extends to adjudicating human rights disputes arising from collective agreement — The Labour Relations Act, C.C.S.M., c. L10, s. 78 — The Human Rights Code, C.C.S.M., c. H175, ss. 22, 26, 29(3).

Failure of insurer to inform policy holders about changes in policy terms is deficiency in service

This appeal concerns the scope and application of two avenues of recourse that are potentially available when employment entitlements have not been honoured.

In 1992, a 25-year-old Darren Pohl started work at the Hudson’s Bay Company. Over the next 28 years, he worked his way up within HBC. From 2012 to 2020, Mr. Pohl worked as the Sales Manager of eight departments in HBC’s Eglinton Square store. Approximately 30 sales associates reported to him. On September 15, 2020, HBC terminated Mr. Pohl’s employment without cause. HBC did not assert that Mr. Pohl had committed any misconduct but, nevertheless, it directed Mr. Pohl’s supervisor to immediately walk him out the front door.

Jerry Slater started work with the Halifax Herald on March 23, 1981. He eventually became the Distribution Coordinator. That job included being a District Manager. He made a yearly salary of $43,000 and got 7 weeks of vacation, among other benefits. He devoted pretty much his entire working life to the Herald.

At issue in this summary trial is the termination of an employment relationship between the parties. The plaintiff, Jason Wong, submits that he was terminated without cause after 15 years of continuous employment with the defendant, Polynova Industries Inc. (“Polynova”). Polynova submits that Mr. Wong abandoned his job, thereby repudiating the employment contract, and that it accepted the repudiation in April, 2020. In the alternative, Polynova submits that Mr. Wong has failed to mitigate his damages by declining Polynova’s offer of re-employment in July, 2020.