Quarry Quandary – Case Comment
In this decision (released on May 12, 2015), the Court of Appeal limits a municipality’s jurisdiction to regulate quarries and declares the subject by-law invalid.
In this decision (released on May 12, 2015), the Court of Appeal limits a municipality’s jurisdiction to regulate quarries and declares the subject by-law invalid.
Off-duty conduct of employees has been a hot topic in the news recently. In the age of round-the-clock social media, inappropriate employee conduct can have far-reaching effects on an employer’s brand and reputation.
The decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Bank of Montreal v Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55 (“Marcotte”), on September 19, 2014, has significant implications with respect to consumer protection requirements in the banking industry. The Marcotte decision highlights the important role that compliance with both provincial and federal consumer protection legislation has within the banking industry.
On May 12th, BP Canada (“BP”) held an information session for potential suppliers in connection with its ongoing offshore exploration program. BP is currently processing seismic data collected over the previous year and is still targeting 2017 to begin exploratory drilling. BP has awarded the contract for an Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) to Stantec and the EIA is currently underway.
The legality and enforceability of policies that attempt to regulate a person’s appearance have recently garnered much media attention. Recent headlines have focused on dress codes in the public school system; however, much of the discussion applies to similar policies in the workplace. The burning question in the minds of many employers is: can I regulate the appearance of my employees in my workplace? The answer, of course, is dependent on a number of factors.
The definition of “family status” under human rights legislation continues to be one of the hottest topics in Canadian employment law.
What happens when an employee files a constructive dismissal action against their employer, but keeps coming to work? Can the employer take the position that the employee has resigned, or must the employer allow the employee to keep working indefinitely? This issue was recently considered by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Garner v Bank of Nova Scotia, 2015 NSSC 122.
In the matter of Spence v. BMO Trust Company, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to set aside a Will for public policy reasons. The evidence suggested that the deceased disinherited his daughter because the father of the daughter’s child was Caucasian. After reviewing the evidence and applicable legal principles, the Court concluded that the Will was void and should be set aside.
On May 21, 2013 Chris Boyle, an employee of R.D. Longard Services Limited (“Longard”), died on the job after being electrocuted. Longard was charged under the Nova Scotia Occupational Health and Safety Act. The charges included not taking every reasonable precaution for the health and safety of Mr. Boyle. By decision dated April 17, 2015, Judge Anne Derrick found Longard guilty. Sentencing is to take place later.
Justice Boudreau of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court was called upon to assess this issue in the matter of B.M. v. K.S. Her Ladyship concluded that a clear and unequivocal expression of interest in a Personal Directive should normally be followed even if it is arguably not in the objective best interests of the person who signed the Personal Directive.