Published in Lawson Lundell Labour and Employment Newsletter (Winter 2004)
In a decision handed down on November 18, 2003 - Matheson v. Canadian Freightways Ltd., 2003 BCSC 1728 - the Supreme Court of BC considered the effect of a break in service on the notice period.
Matheson had commenced working for the defendant company in 1973. In October 1985, after giving one month's notice, he left the company and began working for a competitor. In July 1987, after a spate of unemployment, he once again commenced working for the defendant company.
On May 9, 2000, with no cause alleged, he was dismissed after eight months working notice. In determining what it believed to be reasonable notice, the company only took into account his latest period of unemployment.
Matheson filed a wrongful dismissal action claiming that the company should have treated him as if his service had been uninterrupted and based his notice on the full 27 years of service. read more »
Earl Phillips and Robert Cooper, at McCarthy Tetrault in Vancouver have written a paper entitled, "Employer Liability for the Wrongful Acts of its Employees" (November 14, 2003).
The paper covers the following topics:
- Vicarious Liability.
- Discrimination and Harassment
- Environmental Offences
- Direct Negligence of the Employer
- Fiduciary Obligations
- Limitation Defences
In their overview, the authors state: read more »
David Little, a lawyer at Fraser Milner Cagrain, has written a newsletter article entitled, "Common Employment Pitfalls Facing Technology Companies" (October 2003).
I co-authored an article - "Ready or Not: Workplace Privacy is Here" - that was recently published in Management Rights Journal (Vol. VI, No. 2 2003, pg. 331). The Journal is one of several legal publications issued by Federated Press.
The article covers the following workplace privacy issues in British Columbia and Alberta: read more »
Ogilvy Renault's Labour and Employment Law Group has prepared a brief entitled, "Impaired Driving and Keeping Your Job in Canada? Maybe, Maybe Not!" (May 27, 2003).
Payment made to individual for non-compete in context of share purchase transaction not subject to income tax
In Manrell v. The Queen, 2003 FCA 128, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that a payment made to an individual for a personal non-compete restriction in the context of share purchase transaction was not subject to income tax.
This Tax Update ("Court says Non-Compete Payment is Non-Taxable") by lawyers at Davis & Company discusses the decision.