Category: Labour/Employment Page 7 of 12

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: More Uncertainty on the Test for Discrimination under Human Rights Legislation

Case commented on: Bish v Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2013 ABQB 756

I have written previous posts on ABlawg critiquing the influence of section 15 of the Charter in creating an overly onerous approach to the test for discrimination under human rights legislation in Alberta (see here and here). In late December, another human rights decision showing this influence was released in Bish v Elk Valley Coal Corporation. Unfortunately, Justice Peter Michalyshyn of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench gave short shrift to recent developments out of the Supreme Court of Canada on the appropriate test for discrimination. He also declined to follow the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements on the appropriate standard of review in this context. The Bish case is now under appeal, and one has to hope that the Alberta Court of Appeal will provide some consistency with recent Supreme Court decisions in its appeal decision.

Psychological Stress and Workers’ Compensation in Alberta

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 13, 2013

In Constitutional, Labour/Employment

PDF Version: Psychological Stress and Workers’ Compensation in Alberta

Cases commented on: Martin v Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2012 ABCA 248, appeal heard December 10, 2013 (SCC); Ashraf v SNC Lavalin ATP Inc., 2013 ABQB 688

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Canada heard argument in an Alberta case involving the interplay between federal and provincial legislation providing for the compensation of workers injured in workplace activities. Workers’ Compensation Commissions from British Columbia, Quebec and Nova Scotia intervened in the case. The Court, which reserved judgment after its hearing, offers the following description of the case on its website:

Supreme Court of Canada Expresses Its Opinion on Alberta Privacy Case

By Linda McKay-Panos

On December 4, 2013

In Constitutional, Labour/Employment, Supreme Court of Canada

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Expresses Its Opinion on Alberta Privacy Case

Case commented on: Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner v United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2013 SCC 62 (“AIPC v UFCW”)

This case out of Alberta has been the subject of other ABlawg posts (see here and here), and now the Supreme Court of Canada has made its views known on the constitutionality of Alberta’s privacy legislation. Clearly, the issues that were addressed were of interest across Canada as there were several interveners in the case, including the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario, the Privacy Commissioners of Canada, Ontario and British Columbia, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and labour and business groups.

Supreme Court of Canada May Finally Clear up Issue of “Employment” in Human Rights Cases

By Linda McKay-Panos

On November 4, 2013

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada May Finally Clear up Issue of “Employment” in Human Rights Cases

Case commented on: Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP v British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) 2012 BCCA 313; leave to appeal granted, Michael McCormick v Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP, 2013 CanLII 11313 (SCC).

I have written a number of posts (see for example here and here) about the narrowing interpretation given to “employment” in discrimination cases under the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000 c A-25.5. Since the Act protects individuals from discrimination in five areas (employment, notices, tenancy, services and accommodation, and trade unions), on several grounds (e.g., age, gender, race, colour, place of origin, ancestry, source of income, religious beliefs, family status, marital status, physical disability, mental disability, or sexual orientation), if the discrimination does not occur in an area defined as “employment” (or any of the other four areas) then the complainant cannot obtain a remedy under the Act. Consequently, one way that respondents seek to counter human rights complaints is by establishing that they do not fit within the current definition of “employment”, and hence the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. As noted previously, the narrowing interpretation of “employment” seems to counter the overarching educational and remedial purpose of human rights law, and the “large and liberal interpretation” that is supposed to be given to provisions in the Act.

Defining “Employment” Continues to be a Challenge—Even Outside of the Human Rights Process

By Linda McKay-Panos

On October 7, 2013

In Labour/Employment

PDF Version: Defining “Employment” Continues to be a Challenge—Even Outside of the Human Rights Process

Cases commented on: Van Lent v Place, 2013 ABQB 494; Lovely v Prestige Travel Ltd., 2013 ABQB 467

Some previous posts on ABlawg (see, for example here) have addressed the narrowing of the definitions of “employee” and “employment”, particularly in Alberta human rights cases, and the implications of these decisions. Two recent decisions outside of the human rights realm demonstrate both the importance and implications of finding an “employment” relationship.