Sentences with phrase «wrongful dismissal decisions»

There is a long line of wrongful dismissal decisions that have held that bank employees are to be held to a higher standard of trust than other employees — a level of trust akin to that normally applied to fiduciaries.

One of the last wrongful dismissal decisions of 2015, Drysdale v Panasonic Canada Inc., 2015 ONSC 6878 («Drysdale»), provides some useful insights into the judicial trends that will likely continue into 2016 when deciding wrongful dismissal actions.

Not exact matches

We also represent employers before all levels of courts in wrongful dismissal actions, occupational health and safety matters, judicial reviews of decisions made by administrative tribunals and to obtain injunctive relief.

IBM's second argument in the appeal was to rely on the decision in Sylvester v. British Columbia, in which it was held that wrongful dismissal damages should be reduced by the amount of disability benefits paid during the notice period.

For sure, you can access labour codes and regulations on CanLII, as well as the latest judicial decisions addressing wrongful dismissal, but other sources are fundamental to the practice of labour lawyers.

Other decisions that have reduced the wrongful dismissal damage award because the dismissed employee failed to properly mitigate his or her damages include Walsten v. Kinonjeoshtegon First Nation5, Ata v. Carter Pontiac Buick Ltd. 6 and Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31.7

On December 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its decision in IBM Canada Ltd. v. Waterman, 2013 SCC 70, confirming that employers may not deduct earned pension benefits from wrongful dismissal damages.

While there are some dissenting cases, such as the decision of Justice Pitt in Webster v Almore Trading & Manufacturing Co, 2010 ONSC 3854, it would be prudent for any lawyer or plaintiff to ensure that their wrongful dismissal lawsuits are started within two years of notice of termination.

Speak with an employment lawyer before making any final decisions as to (a) whether to sue for wrongful dismissal and (b) if so, where.

In this wrongful dismissal case, the employer defended its decision to terminate Mr. S, the plaintiff - employee, by relying on the findings -LSB-...]

In a decision that was released last month, I represented five employees who sued their ex-employer for wrongful dismissal.

In that case, while the claim for wrongful dismissal may have failed, (but consider the decision in Davidson v. Tahtsa Timber Ltd., 2010 BCCA 528, which provided for «nominal damages» for the dismissal even where none were warranted for wrongful dismissal damages), the court could still have awarded Human Rights damages, I would argue.

The court's decision - that employees can not sue for an employer's negligent infliction of mental suffering - has previously been considered in the post Tort Damages Place in Wrongful Dismissal Cases.

This decision affirms that, in general, an employer is not entitled to deduct a benefit from wrongful dismissal damages if it is not an indemnity for the loss caused by the breach and the employee has contributed in order to obtain entitlement to it.

In a decision dated September 10, 2013, a London, Ont., woman became the first person to be awarded human rights damages by the Ontario Supreme Court in a wrongful dismissal action.

Coming in just under the wire, the Supreme Court of Canada's mid-December 2013 decision concerning the deductibility of pension benefits from wrongful dismissal damages will have far - reaching effects to be sure.

When users selected 3 - 4 factors relevant to wrongful dismissal reasonable notice periods, we would return a list of court judgments that matched, and provided links to see the decisions where available.

While the Fair case is reportedly still under appeal, signalling that this case is likely fair from over, if the decision stands it will undoubtedly change most employee's approach to wrongful dismissal cases.

The Court of Appeal also referred to the following list of factors which were relevant to the Trial Judge's decision the Appellant had been a partner in the firm (and was thereby unable to sue for wrongful dismissal damages):

In reaching its decision the majority of Supreme Court of Canada held that there is no reason to distinguish between constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal when evaluating the duty to mitigate.

A recent decision of the Federal Court has confirmed that adjudicators acting under the wrongful dismissal provisions of the Canada Labour Code can apply equitable principles in determining jurisdiction.

Recently, there has been a fair amount of commentary in the employment law world about the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII) being a watershed moment for the disposition of wrongful dismissal cases.

It was highly doubtful that the court would allow an award of $ 1,000,000 to stand given the court's recent decision in Pate Estate v. Galway - Cavendish and Harvey (Township), 2013 ONCA 669, considered by this blog in the post Wrongful Dismissal Damages Carry Punitive Elements: ONCA.

In Lawrence v International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 773, in a split decision, the Court of Appeal granted a representation order nunc pro tunc to commence a wrongful dismissal action against a Union after the limitation period had expired because the Union and some of its representatives had defended the proceeding to the point that it was ready for trial.

In a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court in Ottawa, Goulding v. Street Motor Sales, 2013 ONSC 1904 (CanLII), the Honourable Justice Robert N. Beaudoin held that notwithstanding the plaintiff's success in his wrongful dismissal case, because he brought the case in the wrong court, he would have to pay the losing side's costs.

As a very minor quibble, I would not describe the Vriend decision as just a case of wrongful dismissal.