A recent arbitration decision reminds employers that distinctions between different classes of protected employee may be discriminatory. As such, employers should review their policies and agreements in light of this decision to ensure that differential treatment is not applied to employees in different protected classes on leave, as this may provide a basis for a successful discrimination claim.
The federal government recently made numerous significant announcements regarding employee entitlements under Part III of the Canada Labour Code. It is now clear that many new employee entitlements will come into force on 1 September 2019. The government also announced a consultation process concerning further regulatory changes relating to Part III of the code and made changes to the Canada Labour Standards Regulation.
A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling is a helpful reminder of the factors that the courts will assess when determining the enforceability of agreements not to compete with an employer or solicit its customers after the end of an employment agreement. In order for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable, an employer must be able to justify it as being no more than is reasonably required to protect its valid proprietary interests.
The spring session of the British Columbia legislature recently ended, and both the Employment Standards Amendment Act and the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act were proclaimed into law. These two acts represent the most significant changes to employment and labour legislation in two decades and all British Columbia employers should be aware of the impact on their businesses.
Family status discrimination continues to be an area in which the law differs across Canada. In British Columbia, the test for family status discrimination has been more stringent than in other parts of the country for the past 15 years. A recent case involving a project manager who was assigned to work in another province for eight to 10 weeks a few months after the birth of his first child confirms that a personal preference to provide childcare, without additional factors, does not trigger a duty to accommodate based on family status.