The National Labour Relations Board recently issued a decision that expands the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems Corp v Lewis and further authorises employers to limit employees' ability to file or opt in to a class or collective action against their employer. In light of the decision, employers may not only require employees to enter an arbitration agreement that requires one-on-one arbitration, but also impose such an agreement after, and in response to, employees filing or opting in to a class or collective action.
For US employers with 100 or more employees, extensive new information relating to their prior Equal Employment Opportunity-1 filings must soon be submitted. Specifically, in addition to categorising employees by race or ethnicity, gender and job type, employers must now assemble and submit aggregated employee data regarding compensation and annualised hours worked. Assembling the required data may be much more complicated than many employers are expecting, so it is important to begin planning now.
A recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision is significant because it has removed (for now at least) one of the barriers to the development and construction of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. It has also provided some clarity on the roles that the federal and provincial governments may properly play in the regulation of interprovincial pipelines and, more broadly, in the complex area of environmental regulation.
This article reviews the impact of the #MeToo movement, and other corporate culture concerns, on employers and its connection with the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems. There is concern that the court's decision will, in many cases, deprive women and men who have been victims of sexual assault or harassment in the workplace of their right to bring collective or class actions, as Epic Systems has forced employees to bring their claims through one-on-one arbitration.
A Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta judge recently dismissed a case against police officers and the chief of the Edmonton Police Service in its entirety, concluding that the use of force by the defendants did not exceed what was reasonably necessary for the plaintiff's arrest. The case is significant for the court's analysis of forward-looking infrared video evidence, treatment of a prior judicial decision in related criminal proceedings and analysis of the physical force used by police officers to effect an arrest.
As employers doing business in California know, California's employment regulatory scheme is the most comprehensive of any US state. In particular, the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) allows employees to sue employers for civil penalties on behalf of themselves and other employees. Most significantly, PAGA provides for the reimbursement of attorneys' fees to employees who successfully bring suit. However, Epic Systems may mean a change in favour of standalone PAGA cases.
Imprecision in identifying the risks of driving influences how insurers assess the value of automobile insurance. A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision reminds insurers and insured persons how difficult it can be to properly assess and categorise risk at the outset of an insurance relationship; however, it offers little guidance on how the modified causation test should be applied in future cases involving projectiles from motor vehicles.
Can an insurer deny all Section B benefits if an insured agrees to attend an independent medical examination on conditions that conflict with the examining medical practitioner's protocol? The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently considered this question and answered in the affirmative. While the decision was specific to Section B claims, the broader takeaway is equally instructive: relying on the clear terms of a policy does not necessarily impugn the duty of utmost good faith.
One year after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Epic Systems – which paved the way for employers to force employees to waive their right to bring class actions – this article revisits the court's decision and the pros and cons of mandatory arbitration programmes with class action waivers.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has clarified its application of the Supreme Court's decision in Family Insurance Corp v Lombard Canada Ltd in instances of overlapping insurance policies with "other insurance clauses" covering the same loss. The court determined that the analysis in instances of overlapping coverage comes down to whether there was overlapping coverage and whether the insurers intended to limit their obligation to contribute, and by what method and in what circumstances, in relation to the insured.
A plaintiff recently claimed indemnification under a residential insurance policy when unknown persons broke into her garage and stole items, including prop guns. Although the court found that the plaintiff had an insurable interest in the prop guns, it found that she was not entitled to be indemnified for their loss because they belonged to another individual who had not been a roomer or boarder.
The Alberta Court of Appeal has revisited the question of directors' personal liability for injuries sustained in a workplace incident. The key question was whether a corporate representative was personally liable for damage resulting from their own tortious conduct while acting as a representative for the corporation. As the applicable tests for determining personal liability remain unclear, this will continue to be a difficult issue for directors to navigate.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently provided a comprehensive judicial review of a jurisdictional challenge to an arbitral award. This decision will be of interest not only to car manufacturers, but also to most parties subject to an arbitration agreement. However, the broader takeaway from this case is that non-compliance with the Arbitration Act is not a ground for review. Therefore, jurisdictional challenges must be brought at the beginning of hearings.
Senate Bill 121 has amended New Jersey's longstanding Law Against Discrimination to prohibit any contractual provision that conceals "the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment". Notably, the new law applies to all existing and future agreements, except collective bargaining agreements. The law also preserves the enforceability of certain restrictive covenants, including non-competition agreements and provisions protecting confidential and proprietary information.
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently clarified the test for summary judgment applications. The court noted the rift that has emerged in case law while discussing the standard of proof that is required in a summary judgment application. In particular, it held that the reliance on the conventional trial no longer reflects modern reality and must be readjusted in favour of more proportionate, timely and affordable procedures.
The Department of Labour has issued proposed revisions to the definition of 'joint employer' under the Fair Labour Standards Act in order to clarify the joint employer relationship. The joint employment rule allows multiple employers to be responsible for paying hours worked by a shared employee under certain circumstances.
For the first time, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has released a decision that considers issues of statutory misrepresentation in an offering statement under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act 1994. Given the limited jurisprudence in this area, this landmark decision is expected to provide valuable guidance to boards and insurers on risk prevention.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently provided clarity on the sentencing principles in Occupational Health and Safety Act cases. The court clarified that just because jail terms are rare does not mean that they should not be imposed. In its decision, the court discussed the principles of sentencing for regulatory offences at length and recognised the primacy of fines over incarceration in sentencing (ie, in most cases, fines will be more appropriate than jail time).
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently outlined when specific performance will be available in a real estate transaction. This decision is a stark reminder of the pitfalls of acting both in bad faith and without diligence in respect of such a transaction. It is also a reminder that a party to an agreement of purchase and sale cannot insist that time is of the essence if (among other things) it breaches the agreement and does not act in good faith.
In negligence-based actions, defendants routinely issue third-party claims for contribution and indemnity to reduce their liability exposure. As a result, a plaintiff can commence a claim believing certain defendants to have caused its loss but, after successive third-party claims, learn that several other persons might have contributed to the loss. The Ontario Superior Court recently reviewed the law of discoverability with respect to third parties.