The world didn’t end this week, but I guess it’s still early…

The Ontario Court of Appeal finds the clear, broad terms of the minutes of settlement and release extinguish the rights of the plaintiff to payment for stock units that vested and became redeemable at the time of his termination: Preston v. Cervus Equipment Corporation, 2024 ONCA 804

The Alberta Court of Justice holds that an confidentiality and non-competition agreement signed by a company and an independent contractor is subject to the same level of scrutiny as if it were signed by an employee and finds that the contract is unenforceable for being too vague and ambiguous in its terms: NL Fisher Supervision & Engineering Ltd. v Boettger, 2024 ABCJ 225

The Alberta Court of Appeal upholds an appeal of a judicial review challenging a decision of the Alberta Human Rights Commissioner to uphold the decision of the Director to dismiss two human rights complaints resulting in the dismissal of the second of two complaints. That description was more confusing than necessary, but the helpful nugget is the Court’s review of its approach to judicial review of the Director’s decision to dismiss a complaint: Shodunke v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2024 ABCA 348

The Appeal Body was determining an appeal by an employer that it had to pay to an employee termination pay and vacation pay as well as the usual order of officer fee. The employee claimed he was terminated (despite writing on the complaint form “I still work there”). The employer said he resigned. The Appeal Body said there was no termination and the employer did not meet the onus to prove the employee resigned so… the employee is still employed (even though he has new employment and hasn’t had any shifts with the employer since before the complaint was filed) and the order is revoked: Centreline Dental Lab Ltd. v Tymczyszyn, 2024 ABESAB 18

In British Columbia, the court considered a class proceeding by a class of plaintiffs who were duped into paying fees to a group of immigration consultants to get jobs with Mac’s Convenience Stores only arrive in Canada and find out the jobs were not available. Mac’s was found to be vicariously liable for the consultants’ breach of fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs. The court also held, on these particular facts, that the plaintiffs did not have a duty to mitigate their damages once it was apparent that the promised jobs were unavailable because to do so would require them to act unlawfully and risk enforcement action from CBSA (they were temporary foreign workers subject to a strict statutory regime allowing them to work in Canada at all). And these issues were all heard via summary trial(!): Basyal v. Mac’s Convenience Stores Inc., 2024 BCSC 2007

The British Columbia Supreme Court grants an application for an injunction brought by the purchaser of a dental clinic to prevent the vendors from opening or participating in a competing dental clinic post-sale: Dentalcorp Health Services Ltd. v Dr. J.S. Minhas Dental Corp., 2024 BCSC 2006

The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories enters the chat with a wrongful dismissal case involving a 69 year old plaintiff in a senior management role working for the Town of Hay River for only 18 months. He was terminated in 2015 and by the time of trial still had not found new work. The court awarded an 8 month notice period: Harris v Town of Hay River, 2024 NWTSC 47

Arbitrator Sims decides that grievances brought against Telus’s return to work program where employees previously working from home had to report to the office three days a week and the requirement for employees affected by the Barrie office closure having to move within 150 km of Montreal (or accept a voluntary severance package) were barred by the terms of a previous agreement entered into during bargaining in 2011. Furthermore, promissory estoppel did not prevent Telus from making these decisions which were, in any event, reasonable exercises of its management rights and other flexibilities it negotiated for itself in the most recent collective agreement: Telus Communications Inc. v Telecommunications Workers Union, United Steelworkers Local Union 1944, 2024 CanLII 106321

Last week, Bill 24 was introduced into the Alberta legislature which purported to make a number of amendments to the Alberta Bill of Rights including giving individuals the right to refuse vaccination. This week, Bill 33 and Bill 34 have been introduced which update how public bodies will handle personal information and how public bodies respond to access to information requests by repealing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and replacing these statutes with, respectively, the Protection of Privacy Act and Access to Information Act. All of the changes in these three bills will only affect public bodies in Alberta and will not impact private sector employers.

Six employees and their unions challenged pre-placement and random alcohol and drug testing requirements imposed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The challenge failed at first instance and the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal: Power Workers’ Union v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 182 (CanLII)

A Canada Post supervisor grieved his termination after management discovered he was involved in a long-term intimate relationship with a direct report contrary to the employer’s conflict of interest policy. Though the grievor was remorseful, he did not disclose the relationship in accordance with the policy (management found out after the grievor confessed to his superintendent because he was upset rumors of him having a relationship with another employee was negatively affecting his undisclosed relationship) and the termination was upheld: Canada Post Corporation v Association of Postal Officials of Canada, 2024 CanLII 108264 (CA LA)