Category: Labour/Employment Page 11 of 12

Case considered: Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2009 ABQB 241, overturning Donald Luka v. Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. and Syncrude Canada, Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, February 15, 2008 (Beth Bryant)

PDF version: To Employ or Not to Employ: Is That the Question?

An appeal of a Human Rights Panel (“Panel”) decision brings to the fore an issue that has arisen in many human rights cases. When there is a complaint of discrimination in the area of employment under s. 7 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A 200, c. H-14 (“HRCMA“), who will be considered an “employer”? This is especially pertinent in the current marketplace in Alberta where workers are often contractors or sub-contractors.

Employee Alcohol and Drug Testing Once Again At Issue

By Linda McKay-Panos

On April 18, 2009

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Case Considered: United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488 v. Bantrel Constructors Co., 2009 ABCA 84

PDF Version: Employee Alcohol and Drug Testing Once Again At Issue

Alcohol and drug testing of employees is a tricky issue from a legal perspective. For example, in an earlier post, I commented on Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2007 ABCA 426, where in cases of pre-employment drug testing, there seem to be conflicting court decisions that make it challenging to implement effective policies. (Since the post was written, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission’s application for leave to appeal on May 29, 2008). What about the situation where an employer seeks to implement a new drug testing policy to apply to existing unionized employees as a condition of access to a construction work site?

Disability Discrimination in the Workplace

By Linda McKay-Panos

On January 28, 2009

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: Brewer v. Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP, 2008 ABCA 435;
Baum v. Calgary (City), 2008 ABQB 791

PDF Version: Disability Discrimination in the Workplace

Two recent Alberta decisions (one from the Court of Queen’s Bench and one from the Court of Appeal) illustrate the significance of the process followed by decision-makers when analyzing whether, under the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (“HRCMA“), a person has been discriminated against, and, if so, whether the employer has accommodated the person to the point of undue hardship. As noted by Madam Justice Eidsvik in Baum v. Calgary (City), 2008 ABQB 791 (“Baum“): “Accordingly, the law on the duty to accommodate has become quite well developed however, the initial test [see #1 below] has been sparsely discussed until recently” (at para. 29). These two cases illustrate this observation.

Mandatory Retirement and Wrongful Dismissal: An Age Old Question of Compensation for Discrimination

By Linda McKay-Panos

On November 2, 2008

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: Magnan v. Brandt Tractor Ltd., 2008 ABCA 345

PDF Version: Mandatory Retirement and Wrongful Dismissal: An Age Old Question of Compensation for Discrimination

It has long been a legal principle in Canada that there is no recognized tort of discrimination; people should be pursuing remedies for discrimination from human rights tribunals: Board of Governors of Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology v. Bhadauria, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181. This basic principle is supported by another principle: there is no recognized cause of action for breach of a statute, especially in negligence: Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205. These principles were considered earlier this year in Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39, where the Supreme Court held that breach of a human rights code does not amount to an independent actionable wrong. However, a recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal confirms that these legal principles can be blurred when it comes to remedying wrongful dismissal that contains an element of discrimination.

Important Lessons from Lethbridge College

By TUCFA

On September 28, 2008

In Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: Lethbridge College Board of Governors v. Lethbridge College Faculty, 2008 ABQB 316

PDF Version: Important Lessons from Lethbridge College

A recent matter at Lethbridge College carries some important lessons. A psychology professor with 12 years of service was fired after the College discovered he had sexual relationships with three of his undergraduate students. In each case, the relationship had begun shortly after the students had taken his course, although the flirtation had begun during the term. Each of the relationships was consensual, two of the students were relatively close in age to the professor, and he had known two of the women prior to their becoming his students. These relationships were discovered by College administration when the third relationship ended unhappily and the student filed a complaint with the dean. In her complaint, she alleged that the professor had taken advantage of his position as her instructor to inveigle his way into her affections. Based on the complaint, the College searched the professor’s emails and discovered the previous two relationships. In both those cases, the (now former) students remained on friendly terms with the professor and had taken subsequent courses from the professor, without disclosure of the previous relationship either by the professor or the students.