Denton’s Occupational Health and Safety group covers the Schmig decision of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) from earlier this spring. The CIRB dismissed a safety reprisal complaint brought by the self-represented Schmig after he missed a number of deadlines and failed to respond to the CIRB. Schmig had complained that his employer took action against him for exercising his safety rights. The CIRB requested more particularized pleadings and, after several extensions were granted and additional materials sent to the complainant, the CIRB ultimately decided to dismiss the complaint:
 In this case, Mr. Shmig claimed in a discussion with the IRO that he never received the Board’s decision requesting more particularized pleadings. The IRO sent him another copy of the decision.
 When Mr. Shmig failed to provide the requested pleading, he claimed in another discussion with the IRO that the emailed copy of the decision had never reached him.
 Finally, after the Board granted Mr. Shmig an extension to file the requested particulars, Mr. Shmig failed to pick up two separate Board mailings which had been couriered to his last known address.
 Ultimately, it is not the Board’s role to chase after a party for its pleading. The Board is satisfied that it provided Mr. Shmig with several opportunities to pursue his complaint. For whatever reason, Mr. Shmig chose not to do so.
 In these circumstances, the Board has decided to dismiss Mr. Shmig’s complaint.
The Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada magazine features an article/interview with Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien. Among other things, the interview cover’s his thoughts on Bill C-13 (cybercrimes bill) and data collection:
Doug MacLeod runs down his top 10 employment law stories for 2014. Most are Ontario-centric, naturally, but stories 2, 4, and 8 apply beyond that province’s borders:
With a tip o’ the hat to Daniel Strigberger, here is an interesting PIPEDA case released today by the Court of Appeal of Ontario. The facts are accurately summarized by the court as follows:
 The appellant, Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”), has a judgment against the defendants, Phat and Phuong Trang. The Trangs own a property, which they have mortgaged to the respondent, Bank of Nova Scotia (“Scotiabank”). RBC wants the Sheriff to sell the Trangs’ property so it can collect its judgment. The Sheriff, however, refuses to sell the property without a mortgage discharge statement from Scotiabank. RBC twice sought to obtain this statement by examining the Trangs as judgment debtors, but they did not appear for either examination. RBC also asked the mortgagee, Scotiabank, to produce a mortgage statement. Scotiabank said PIPEDA precluded it from doing so.
The court held that a mortgage discharge statement, unlike the mortgage originally registered on title and publicly available through the land registry system, contains details of the mortgage balance that are not public and therefore the mortgage discharge statement is personal information. The court went on to dismiss other aspects of RBC’s appeal. The only present recourse for RBC to obtain the information it requires is to apply for an order to examine a representative of Scotiabank. The court also notes that in the future, a requirement to disclose such information could be written into the loan documents to expressly authorize the release of this information:
A London-based gynecologist and obstetrician suggests it may be time to consider recognizing “menstrual leave” in the modern workplace: