Category: Labour/Employment Page 1 of 12

Matters Commented On: Ministerial Order No 2020-011 (Community and Social Services); Court of Queen’s Bench Of Alberta, Amended Master Order #2 Relating to Court’s Response to the COVID-19 Virus; Court of Queen’s Bench Of Alberta, Pandemic Operations/ FAQ; The Provincial Court of Alberta, COVID-19 Pandemic Planning for the Scheduling of Matters

Many commentators have remarked on how COVID-19 and government orders to self-isolate will lead to increased rates of domestic violence and adversely impact victims of domestic violence seeking protection. Last weekend, for example, UN Secretary General António Guterres remarked that there has already been a “horrifying global surge in domestic violence” and urged “all governments to make the prevention and redress of violence against women a key part of their national response plans for COVID-19.” The law clearly has a significant role to play in this context. As noted in a previous post, domestic violence matters engage many legal issues: civil protection order law, criminal law, family and child protection law, residential tenancies law, social assistance and housing law, and employment law, to name a few. This post reviews some of the efforts of lawmakers and courts in Alberta to respond to domestic violence issues in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and identifies some areas where further measures are needed. My focus is on domestic violence – in other words, violence in the context of intimate partner relationships – rather than child or elder abuse. Child and elder abuse cases also present challenging issues in the current pandemic, but they are beyond the scope of my analysis here.

Bill 26 and the Rights of Farm and Ranch Workers in Alberta

By Jennifer Koshan

On November 29, 2019

In Constitutional, Labour/Employment

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Bill 26 and the Rights of Farm and Ranch Workers in Alberta

Bill Commented On: Bill 26, Farm Freedom and Safety Act, 2019 (First Session, 30th Legislature)

As promised in its election platform, the UCP government has taken steps to repeal parts of Bill 6, the Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act – the NDP’s initiative to extend labour and employment protections to farm and ranch workers. For previous posts on the need for Bill 6 and the changes that it made to labour and employment legislation in Alberta, see here. The latest development in this saga is last week’s introduction of Bill 26, the Farm Freedom and Safety Act, 2019, which had second reading in the legislature on November 26, 2019. This post will describe the changes that Bill 26 seeks to make and discuss the possibilities of a constitutional challenge to the Bill.

Hearsay? Another Perspective on Farm and Ranch Work and the Alleged Flaws of Bill 6

By Jennifer Koshan

On April 9, 2019

In Labour/Employment

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Hearsay? Another Perspective on Farm and Ranch Work and the Alleged Flaws of Bill 6

Matter Commented On: United Conservative Party Proposal to Repeal Bill 6, the Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act; Hearsay Podcast of March 19, 2019

Even before the provincial election was called, the United Conservative Party (UCP) announced that it would “make good on a key promise to Alberta’s farm families and repeal Bill 6.” The announcement claims that the Alberta New Democratic Party (NDP) failed to consult farmers in enacting the Bill, resulting in a loss of “public trust with farm and ranch families.” The UCP promises to “immediately launch comprehensive consultations with farmers, ranchers, agriculture workers and others on how best to balance the unique economic pressures of farming with the need for a common sense, flexible farm safety regime.” These consultations are intended to “develop recommendations for the introduction of the Farm Freedom and Safety Act (FFSA), which will be passed into law in 2019.”

Mixed Results for Corrections Officer Terminated for Dishonesty

By Linda McKay-Panos

On August 17, 2018

In Labour/Employment

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: Mixed Results for Corrections Officer Terminated for Dishonesty

Case Commented On: Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v Alberta, 2018 ABQB 524 (AUPE)

Justice GS Dunlop of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently heard an application for judicial review of a three-day suspension and termination of a long-standing employee of the Province of Alberta. For just about 30 years, Todd Ross (Ross) was a Correctional Peace Officer (CPO) employed by the Province. He was a member of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) and was also a union representative (AUPE at para 1). In April 2013, a new Edmonton Remand Centre opened (AUPE at para 2). Ross had been terminated on June 28, 2013 on three grounds:

His communication with management about the new Edmonton Remand Centre in April 2013; Ross wrote and sent two emails to the Executive Director and the Assistant Executive Director of the new Edmonton Remand Centre, which the arbitrator had described Ross as ‘insolent, insubordinate and untruthful’; Ross had also erred when he addressed his comments to the Deputy Minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister;
His actions when he was relieved with pay on April 26, 2013; and
His actions while he was on leave with pay after April 26, 2013; the employer alleged that Ross had induced other CPOs to engage in an illegal strike between April 26 and May 3, 2013—however, the arbitrator held that this allegation was not proven (AUPE at paras 10 and 11).

In a decision on this matter released April 14, 2015, the arbitrator held that the termination was an excessive response to Ross’s misconduct in the two emails; Ross’s dismissal was set aside and replaced with a six-month suspension starting from June 28, 2013 (AUPE at para 11).

Finding Clarity: ABQB Upholds Decision by Worker’s Compensation Board’s Appeals Commission

By Kaye Booth

On August 14, 2018

In Labour/Employment

By: Kaye Booth

PDF Version: Finding Clarity: ABQB Upholds Decision by Worker’s Compensation Board’s Appeals Commission

Case Commented On: In-Line Contracting Partnership v Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission), 2018 ABQB 529.

In-Line Contracting Partnership v Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission) (ILCP) is a decision regarding the proper interpretation of “suitable” permanent modified work in the context of the policies of the Worker’s Compensation Board (“WCB”). On November 3, 2013, Tracy McKnight, who worked as a labourer on a road construction crew, suffered four broken ribs and a soft tissue injury when a co-worker fell on her (ILCP at para 1). Ms. McKnight took time off work, during which time she was compensated by the WCB. By March, the WCB found that Ms. McKnight was able to return to work, and her employer, In-Line Contracting Partnership (“In-Line”), offered her a job as a labourer, which Ms. McKnight rejected. A few months after, the WCB was alerted to the fact that Ms. McKnight had not fully recovered, and is now suffering from a permanent disability. This was communicated to In-Line, who offered Ms. McKnight modified work, which she once again rejected. The Appeals Commission for the WCB found that the job offer for permanent modified employment was not suitable according to the WCB’s guidelines (ILCP at para 3). ILCP is an appeal from the WCB’s Appeals Commission to the Court of Queen’s Bench.

Category: Labour/Employment Page 1 of 12

Domestic Violence and Legal Responses to COVID-19 in Alberta

Bill 26 and the Rights of Farm and Ranch Workers in Alberta

Hearsay? Another Perspective on Farm and Ranch Work and the Alleged Flaws of Bill 6

Mixed Results for Corrections Officer Terminated for Dishonesty

Finding Clarity: ABQB Upholds Decision by Worker’s Compensation Board’s Appeals Commission