Skip to Content

Canada Labour Code - Part III

Right to reinstatement after maternity / parental leave, does not trump employer's right to terminate as part of restructuring

Jurisdiction: - Canada/Federal

Moday and Bell Mobility Inc., 2013 CarswellNat 393 (Can. Arb.)

Federal government abolishes mandatory retirement except where it is bona fide occupational requirement

Jurisdiction: - Canada/Federal

The federal government has abolished mandatory retirement in federally regulated workplaces except where it is a bona fide occupational requirement ("BFOR").

For more on this development, see:

And this is the text of a news release issued by the Canadian Human Rights Commission on December 16, 2011:

Government of Canada Strikes Down Mandatory Retirement  read more »

BC court issues precedent decision on penalties for breach of Canada Labour Code group termination provisions

Jurisdiction: - Canada/Federal
Sector: - Transportation

In Regina v. Servisair Inc. BCPC 142, the BC Provincial Court addressed the appropriate penalties to impose for breach of certain Canada Labour Code ("CLC") group termination provisions.

The decision was issued on May 10, 2011. It is the first reported decision in Canada to consider the penalty issue.

Group Termination Provisions

The group termination provisions in the CLC are triggered when 50 or more employees are terminated in a single industrial establishment either simultaneously or within a 4-week period. Among other things, these provisions require the employer to:  read more »

Employee's stress due to nature of job not employer's improper conduct; no construtive dismissal

Jurisdiction: - Canada/Federal
Sector: - First Nations

Kade v. Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation [2011] C.L.A.D. No. 101 (Mole)

Focus on progressive discipline

I have been meaning for several weeks now to draw attention to the February 2011 edition of the Labour and Employment Law Perspective, the Canadian Bar Association National Labour and Employment Law Section Newsletter.

The focus of the excellant February issue was progressive discipline and it contained the following articles (with the summaries taken directly from the newsletter):

Compensation in lieu of reinstatement: A deviation from DeHavilland

By Andrew Zabrovsky

In an interesting supplementary decision following an award granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement, an Ontario arbitrator strongly repudiated several of the well accepted and long propagated concepts which have been applied to this remedy.  read more »

Legislation introduced that would abolish mandatory retirement in most federally regulated workplaces

Jurisdiction: - Canada/Federal

Mandatory retirement policies in most federally regulated workplaces will be abolished if a recently introduced private members bill becomes law.

The bill - Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code (mandatory retirement age) - was introduced by Ms. Raymonde Folco, a Liberal Member of Parliament from Quebec on November 15, 2010.

It passed Second Reading in the House of Commons on December  6, 2010 and is being referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources at the committee stage of the parliamentary process. If it passes in committee, it will be referred to Third Reading and likely become law.

In the parliamentary debates held so far, Ms. Folco stated that her bill has three main objectives:  read more »

Split three-judge panel of Ontario Divisional Court upholds decision to not certify CIBC overtime class action

Jurisdiction: - Canada/Federal

In a decision issued on September 10, 2010 - Fresco v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2010 ONSC 4724 - a split three-judge panel of the Ontario Divisional Court upheld the decision of an Ontario Superior Court motion judge to not certify an overtime class action against CIBC.

It looks like the Ontario Divisional Court's decision will now be further appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. See this case summary - "Ontario Court Affirms Decision Denying Certification in CIBC Overtime Action" (September 17, 2010) -  by law firm Torys.

My two posts on the original June 2009 decision by the motions judge can be found here and here.