Imagine leaving everything behind: friends and family, a familiar culture, the life you thought you'd live. Paying a shady company you don't know much about thousands of dollars, a nearly impossible amount of money that you somehow you scrape together through hard work, loans, and selling what you and your family can, all so you can get a minimum-wage job in Canada. Travelling across the globe, landing in Vancouver, being taken by a stranger to a dingy hotel on King George Highway where you are to share a room with several more strangers, also migrant workers like yourself.Read More
This 8:1 decision the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a Human Rights Tribunal decision that a cocaine addict in a safety-sensitive job, who was fired for violating the employer’s policy by failing to report his addiction and then being involved in an accident, was not fired (on the facts of the particular case) because of his disability but rather because he violated the policy under circumstances where it was entirely within his capacity to comply with it.Read More
In a decision issued last month, the Labour Relations Board granted IOUE Local 115 organizers access to an access-controlled employee residence (i.e. a company work camp) for the purpose of organizing employees on the Site C dam project. This was a “raid”, or rather a “liberation”, of the workers from CLAC and the organizing period was time-sensitive. The employer was also ordered to provide union representatives food and lodging and a place to meet with workers during the period of access.Read More
Since his inauguration less than a month ago, President Donald Trump and his executive orders have been a frequent topic of conversation online and in our office.
One of Trump’s lesser-publicized executive orders, issued January 25, 2017,
may significantly impact the Department of Homeland Security's 2007 policy that extends certain U.S. Privacy Act protections to non-U.S. persons.
Being a self-proclaimed privacy nerd, I immediately wrote to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to express my concerns, given the amount of personal information that Canadian agencies routinely provide to U.S. agencies.
This afternoon, I received the following response from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada:
You asked about U.S. President Trump’s executive order and its impact on the privacy of Canadians. I can tell you that we are actively examining the potential implications for Canadians. There are several legal instruments in the US which affect the privacy rights of foreigners, and we are considering those as part of our analysis.Read More
Andrew Sabean lives in Nova Scotia. In 2004, he was the victim of a traffic accident. Unlike here in BC, Nova Scotia does not have a one-stop-shop public auto insurer, so big claims often end up as battles between insurance companies about who has to pay claims.
Mr. Sabean won his lawsuit and the at-fault driver’s insurance company paid out. However, the insurer only paid to the limit of the other driver’s policy, more than$83,000 less than Mr. Sabean’s damages. He had coverage under his own car insurance for cases like this where the other driver is underinsured, so he made a claim against his own insurer, Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co., for the remaining amount.
His insurance refused to pay. What Mr. Sebean didn’t realize was that the fine print in his policy deducted disability benefits from a “policy of insurance” from whatever payments they would have to make to him. They said that future CPP Disability Benefits that he was entitled to should be clawed back from the total they owed him. Mr. Sebean sued his own insurance company and won, but the company succeeded in an appeal to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. So he had to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to claim the full benefit he had paid for when he purchasedhis car insurance from Portage La Prairie Mutual.
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed his appeal. Most significantly, they said that when it comes to interpreting the words of an insurance policy (or similar kind of document) the proper vantage point is what a reasonable non-expert member of the public would understand the words to mean when they enter into the contract. The insurance company could not rely on a previous ruling by the Supreme Court itself to justify its restrictive interpretation of the rules. A person in Mr. Sabean’s position would not be expected to know the jurisprudence, so it could not be used against him.Read More
This week, Elections BC put out a bulletin that attempts to clarify the Supreme Court of Canada's clarification. In a nutshell, EBC's position is that if you, as an individual acting alone, make fewer than 26 signs or pamphlets by yourself, using your own supplies and equipment, and you hand-deliver these to fewer than 26 people, then you will not be caught be the definition of a "sponsor" in the BC Election Act. However, organizations, including groups of individuals, that conduct any sort of election advertising will be considered sponsors and subject to all the rules regarding advance registration, authorization lines, and disclosure reporting.
The organization that brought the legal action that resulted in the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision disagrees with EBC's bulletin. The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, along with the BC Civil Liberties Association, sent a joint letter to BC's Chief Electoral Officer this morning outlining their concerns. They take issue with a number of Election BC's interpretations, including the exclusion of organizations, from the scope of the SCC's clarification.
We'll keep you posted as this unfolds. In the meantime, don't forget to register for our upcoming workshop, Election Advertising Sponsorship 101, which will be held on February 28th.Read More
The BC Election Act requires individuals and organizations to register before they “sponsor” election advertising. This places a burden on people and groups to ensure they understand the law regarding election advertising and sponsorship in advance of engaging in any of these activities.
The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association took issue with having to register in order to engage in small-scale election advertising. Unlike the Canada Elections Act, the BC Election Act does not specify a minimum spending threshold (i.e. $500) before sponsors are required to register. The Association pursued its fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”).
The SCC’s recent decision refocuses the requirement to register on the basis of whether or not a person or group meets the definition of a sponsor, rather than whether or not their communications meet the definition of election advertising. Election law enthusiasts: see below for more on these definitions. According to the SCC, “sponsor” captures individuals and organizations who receive advertising services from others in undertaking election advertising campaigns, but exempts election advertising that is not sponsored from the requirement to register.Read More
During the holiday season, responsible private party hosts take care to avoid intoxicated guests driving home. But what if one of them does and a crash results? Is the private party host personally liable? The Supreme Court of Canada settled this issue a decade ago, but many Canadians are unaware of the extent of their legal obligations.
There four important things to bear in mind.Read More
It's a basic principle, and one the Justices hearing the case raised over and over again during the trial in Gorenshtein v BC (Employment Standards Tribunal): in Canada, we don't make people buy jobs. Workers cannot be charged fees for jobs; it's strictly illegal. And yet, migrant workers who come to Canada under Canada's temporary foreign worker program, especially low-skilled streams, will tell you again and again that they are paying fees, thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars, for the promise of a low-paid, precarious job in Canada.
We're fighting fees like these (and other exploitation) in the class action lawsuit that you can read about here. And we were thrilled to see the decision that came down last week from the BC Court of AppealRead More
Last February, I blogged about whether or not the B.C. government was off-side when it exempted major junior hockey players from the protections and minimum standards contained in the Employment Standards Act.
Today, the Vancouver Sun revealed the results of FOI requests related to behind-the-scenes lobbying by Western Hockey League officials in Kelowna, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Prince George, Vancouver and Victoria, which included letters addressed to Premier Christy Clark and cabinet. According the Sun, the teams claimed they might have to close without government intervention.
The CHL boasts more than nine million fans attended its games last season. The CHL is also the world’s largest development hockey league, with 52 Canadian and eight American teams participating in the Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and Western Hockey League (which includes the five B.C. region teams mentioned above).
Last season, tickets to Vancouver Giants home games at the Pacific Coliseum sold for between $15.50 and $24.50 and they were expected to play 36 homes games this season. Attendance at Vancouver Giants’ games last season has been estimated at 5169 people on average. Even at the lowest ticket price, this suggests gross ticket sales for home games of over $2.8 million – and that’s not counting revenue generated from away games. Apparently, the Giants also leased the Pacific Coliseum on a break-even basis.
The other teams in the Western Hockey League’s B.C. Region also sell thousands of tickets per game.Read More
Elections Canada’s Retrospective Report on the last federal election has just been released. The Report incorporates data from various post-election surveys (some of which we’ve blogged about previously) and audits, and will form the basis of Elections Canada’s recommendations regarding amendments to the Canada Elections Act. Overall, the Report emphasizes that significant changes to election procedures are necessary to keep pace with modern voting habits and to address issues that arose during the campaign.
The Report warns that action is needed now to avoid future crises:
“Given this shift and the number of years between elections, it is essential to recognize that the success of the 42nd general election is no guarantee of favourable outcomes in the future. This is not the time for complacency. In Elections Canada's estimation, federal electoral administration has reached a tipping point and action is required now. The transformation in elector behaviours and service preferences is significant, and a new baseline must be set in terms of meeting, and hopefully exceeding, electors' service needs.”Read More
A unionized employee who has been denied benefits or coverage under an employer-sponsored plan may face a deceptively difficult decision: whether to grieve the denial against the employer, or to sue the insurance company.
In many cases the employee’s only option will be to sue the insurance company. The insurance company is not a party to the collective agreement, so grievance arbitration is not available. Usually, this means that the employee is on their own, without direct representation from the union.
Sometimes, though, an employee does have the option to grieve. If an employer is self-insured – that is, the employer itself pays the insured members’ claims – then denial of coverage is arbitrable, because the employer itself denied the coverage.Read More
The Red Shirt Foundation was born out of the tragic deaths of Michael John Lunn and Fred McEachern, who were shot and killed in 2014 at the Nanaimo mill where they worked by a former employee. Michael was the plant chairman for his union and was active in protecting the workers’ rights and advocating for safety at the mill. The gunman’s trial is scheduled to begin shortly.
Unlike Ontario, British Columbia does not require employers to have workplace violence policies and procedures. The Ontario occupational health and safety legislation requires employers to proactively address violence from all possible sources, including customers, employees, and domestic partners. As part of this, Ontario employers must assess the risk of workplace violence that may arise from the nature, conditions or type of work or workplace, and develop measures and procedures to control the identified risks.Read More
On July 29th, a couple who had been convicted of terrorism charges for planting three explosive devices on the BC legislature grounds received a stay of proceedings at the BC Supreme Court. Justice Bruce described the couple, John Nuttall, 41 and Amanda Korody, 33, as “marginalized, socially isolated, former heroin addicts dependent on methadone and welfare to subsist”.
In 2013, the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency informed the RCMP that Mr. Nuttall had tried to buy potassium nitrate which can be used to manufacture explosives. From this point on, a group of RCMP officers undertook an elaborate sting operation called “Project Souvenir” to induce the couple into committing the offence.Read More
We are among many British Columbians celebrating the amendment (finally!) of the BC Human Rights Code to explicitly recognize gender identity and gender expression as protected grounds.
While trans activists and their allies demanded this change, the BC Liberal government insisted for years that the change was unnecessary. The law is already clear, they said: even though the Human Rights Code doesn't explicitly say the words "gender identity and gender expression", the Tribunal and courts have decided that these grounds are nonetheless protected.
Why did trans activists keep fighting, then? Why did MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert introduce the proposed legislation 4 times in 5 years? And why does it feel like such a victory to see this change finally in place?Read More
If you are a union that administers benefits for your members, you will likely be interested in today’s decision from the BC Court of Appeal in a case about union-administered LTD benefits.
A group of disabled members filed a class-action lawsuit against the union after their LTD benefits were reduced. The LTD plan had been facing insolvency due to rising claims costs and insufficient premiums to cover them.Read More
Pokémon Go is a hot topic at our workplace lately. Three of us have been swept up in the craze, while the other two (hint, it’s a generational thing) find the whole thing bizarre and somewhat distasteful. Sula, our office dog, has not yet declared her position on the issue.
Perhaps Pokémon Go is a hot topic at your workplace these days too. Here are some FAQs* about Pokémon Go in the workplace.Read More
A well-crafted cross examination is like a classical sculpture, every extra bit of marble chipped away until all that is left is the essential form of David. A skilled cross-examiner asks only those questions required to make the argument and nothing more. Cross-examining effectively is just as much about what not to ask as it is about what to ask. Here are five kinds of questions that have no place in well-executed cross-examination at grievance arbitration:Read More
In a split decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has set out new guidelines that will dramatically change the way our courts enforce the right under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be tried within a reasonable time.
The old rules set down in 1992 involved balancing a series of factors, including the length of the delay, the reasons, any conduct by the accused that waived portions of the waiting time, limits to institutional resources for getting cases heard, and prejudice to the accused.
In R. v Jordan, after commenting on the harmful trend toward lengthier delays, the majority set out a fixed time-frame to determine whether charges should be stayed because of violation of section 11(b).Read More
The Christian Labour Association (CLAC), Local 66, suffered a setback at the Labour Relations Board earlier this month. CLAC claims to be a trade union but is not recognized to be a legitimate workers’ organization by anyone within the labour movement. A recent decision by the LRB illustrates some of the reasons why this is so.
In a decision issued June 16, 2016, Re Clark Reefer Lines Ltd, a reconsideration panel of the Labour Relations Board headed by Board Chair Brent Mullin directed that the Board hold a hearing into the merits of a complaint by a member of the Christian Labourer’s Association of Canada (CLAC) Local 66 that the union had violated its duty of fair representation when it failed to represent him in his termination.
The worker alleged that when he was hired he was never told who the union was; he was not given a collective agreement and when dues were deducted there was no indication as to which union they were being forwarded.Read More