Key Employment Law Cases of 2014

Another year has passed and that means it is time to reflect back and consider some developments in employment law that we witnessed in 2014.  It was not an earth shattering year in the employment law field in Canada.  There were certainly many decisions reached across the country dealing with wrongful dismissal, breach of human rights, non-competition covenants and a range of other topics.  But the number of decisions that really changed the law was limited.  That being said, I have highlighted a few cases and other employment law developments that are worth summarizing.  I have provided the links to my original blog articles where they are cases that I wrote about.

1.  Ghomeshi and the CBC

This case is not completely over since there is a still a potential labour arbitration pending.  Moreover, the case was not adjudicated.  It was settled.  However, it created a great deal of discussion in the employment law world and for that reason it is worth including.  What are the key points to think about?

A.  Unionized employees will have an incredibly difficult time launching wrongful dismissal or other employment law related cases in the court system.  The proper venue for these cases is labour arbitration hearings.  For the most part, dismissed unionized employees must file a grievance.

B.  Egregious personal conduct, even off-hours conduct, can be cause for dismissal, particularly if at least some of it spills over into the workplace or into workplace related events.  Employers will need to pay careful attention to allegations of improper personal conduct and should address and deal with these matters before they become unmanageable.

C.  Taking an extremely aggressive approach to employment law litigation is simply not always the best strategy for plaintiffs.

There may still be more on this in 2015 as Canadians follow Ghomeshi’s criminal proceedings and his labour arbitration case.  The high profile nature of the dispute warrants its inclusion on a list of interesting developments.

2.  Boucher v. Wal-mart

The Ontario Court of Appeal awarded more than $400,000 to an employee who had been subjected to humiliating treatment in the workplace.  It is still rare in Canada to see these types of awards.  Although the amount of the trial judgment was reduced considerably, this case is still a significant weapon in the arsenal of decisions upon which abused employees and their counsel will rely.  It remains to be seen whether large scale punitive and aggravated damages become more commonplace in Canada.  Employees facing humiliating workplace conduct and bullying bosses have additional legal options to consider in light of this decision.

3.  AG Canada v. Johnstone

In this key case, the Federal Court of Appeal looked at the issue of “family status” under human rights legislation and concluded that family status includes childcare responsibilities and similar family care obligations.  This means that an employee with childcare responsibilities may, in certain circumstances, be entitled to protection and accommodation under applicable human rights legislation.  The Court set out a number of criteria that must be met and tried to make it clear that not every employee with some child care responsibilities will be able to request accommodation.  However, many employers are trying to deal with the issues pro-actively and are finding ways to accommodate the needs of employees with child care and elderly care responsibilities.

4.  Jan Wong and the Globe and Mail

Although I originally discussed this in 2013, the adjudicator’s decision was upheld in 2014 and Jan Wong was left facing a significant award as well as an award of legal costs.  The case illustrates a few points:

A.  The difficulty of proceeding in any kind of dispute in a unionized workplace without the backing and support of the union;

B.  The seriousness of confidentiality provisions in a settlement.  Employees who sign confidentiality provisions in settlements with their former employers can expect to face repercussions if they breach these provisions.  In some cases, a breach can mean a requirement to pay back to the employer the full amount of the original settlement.

5.  Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia (Originally 2012 Ontario CA)

The Bank of Nova Scotia reached a settlement of a class action lawsuit with a group of bank employees claiming entitlement to overtime pay.  This settlement means that as many as 16,000 employees of the Bank of Nova Scotia could be entitled to overtime pay for overtime hours worked during the time period 2000 to 2013.  The affected employees were required to submit their claims by October 2014.  The case is a significant illustration of the availability of class actions to deal with widespread policies of large employers that may affect many different employees.  It is also which has caused employers and employees to examine their overtime hours and overtime policies.  Just because an employee is paid a salary does not mean that the employee can be required to work uncompensated overtime hours.


2014 Blog Posts – Selected Highlights

As well as they the key cases and issues set out above, I have highlighted a few of my blog posts from the past year.  In case you missed any of these, you might find them interesting:

1.  Hollander v. Tiger Courier Inc. (Sask C.A.)

It was not considered wrongful dismissal where a package of marijuana was delivered to an employee at his workplace.    The employee claimed that he knew nothing about the pot and that it wasn’t his…Fascinating reading.

2.  Rhebergen v. Creston Veterinary Clinic (B.C.C.A.)

The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld a very onerous non-compete provision for a veterinarian.  The clause prohibited a vet from setting up a practice within 25 miles of her employer’s clinic, for a period of 3 years.  It included huge financial penalties that would become payable in the event of a breach.  Surprisingly, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld this clause.

3.  Steps to Take When You Are Fired

In this blog post, I have set out some things to consider when facing a dismissal situation.

4.  Are Employment Contracts Negotiable?

This post deals with aspects of employment contracts that can and should be negotiated.

5.  Poisoned Work Environment?  Not in this Restaurant.

Discussion of a recent Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision addressing allegations of a poisoned work environment.


For 2015, I will aim to put up one or two new posts a month and I hope to send out an email update quarterly, or so.


Wishing everyone a Happy New Year.

Gender Discrimination Class Action against Walmart is Struck Down by the U.S. Supreme Court

Gender Discrimination Class Action against Walmart is Struck Down by the U.S. Supreme Court

Can a large group of employees use the Class Action process to sue for discrimination in the U.S.? Yes, they still can, though they face significant hurdles. In a landmark decision, issued on June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a group of present and former Wal-Mart employees who had brought a claim for gender discrimination. The members of the Court split along ideological and philosophical lines. The majority opinion, penned by Justice Scalia, rejected the use of the Class Action process for this type of claim. The Court held that there was insufficient commonality between the various plaintiffs who would be making claims of discrimination.

The plaintiffs were alleging that Wal-Mart’s policy of giving local supervisors discretion over employment matters resulted in a disproportionate negative effect on women who were promoted less frequently than men. Wal-Mart maintained that it had a policy in place banning gender discrimination. It also maintained that its policy of giving supervisors discretion was gender neutral. However, as the minority opinion pointed out, women fill 70% of the hourly jobs in Wal-Mart’s stores but make up only 33% of management employees. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that women are paid less than men in every region of the country in similar positions and that Walmart’s statistics were less favourable than other retailers.

Though the plaintiffs could not point to a specific policy directive that would violate anti-discrimination legislation or a specific person or group responsible for creating the discriminatory results, they were able to show that there was evidence of significant gender discrimination, across the country and it was not being addressed.

The Supreme Court majority rejected these arguments. It was of the view that the plaintiffs were seeking to “sue about millions of employment decisions at once. Without some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question why I was disfavoured.” Politically, the voice of the Court majority is heard most clearly in its general assumptions about gender issues. As Justice Scalia writes, “…left to their own devices most managers in any corporation – and surely most managers in a corporation that forbids sex discrimination – would select sex-neutral, performance based criteria for hiring and promotion that produce no actionable disparity at all.” In other words, most of the male managers, who make up 70% of management, are not likely to discriminate in making promotion decisions about others even though the process by which they have been promoted may have been flawed and even discriminatory.

With an entirely different political and philosophical view, the minority naturally saw this issue differently. As Justice Ginsburg writes, “Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware. The risk of discrimination is heightened when those managers are predominantly of one sex, and are steeped in a corporate culture that perpetuates gender stereotypes.” The minority would have permitted the case to move forward as a class action with sufficient commonality found in the issue of whether Wal-Mart’s pay and promotions policies result in unlawful discrimination.

As a result of this decision, litigants alleging discrimination will need to narrow their class definition to be able to rely on a specific policy or decision that affects all of the members of that class. This may well make it extremely difficult for large groups of employees to advance cases of systemic discrimination.

The Canadian legal landscape has a statutory and common law regime that makes Canadian employment law completely different from U.S. law. Although there have been changes to Human Rights legislation across Canada that now permit lawsuits to address discrimination in some jurisdictions instead of complaints with human rights tribunals, we have not yet seen a move to class action discrimination cases of this type.

If this type of case does it make it to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is likely that the decision will be as politically acrimonious among the Court’s members as it was in the U.S., particularly if the current Prime Minister further politicizes the Court by selecting nominees on the basis of ideology rather than competence as the U.S. has done for so many years.

google-site-verification: googlec03888379d3701bb.html