OUR SM SITES:
Ted's Blog

SHARE THIS PAGE

Continuous Video Surveillance Of Employees: Psychological Harassment?

Wednesday, April 20, 2022 - Filed in: Courts
video camera
Case law recognizes that constant and continuous video surveillance of employees may constitute an unreasonable working condition, and thus violate . . . Human Rights and Freedoms . . . when not justified in a rational and proportionate manner according to the circumstances.

In the case of Lazzer v. Magasin Baseball Town inc.,, 2022 QCTAT 478, rendered by the administrative judge Pierre-Étienne Morand on February 3, 2022, rather than having to determine whether the presence of cameras constituted an unreasonable working condition within the meaning of the Charter, the Administrative Labour Tribunal ("Tribunal") had to rule on the merits of complaints of psychological harassment filed in this context. Read More...

SCC clarifies re fines instead of forfeiture where proceeds of crime.

Thursday, March 31, 2022 - Filed in: Courts
maple syrup
"In 2016, V was convicted of fraud, trafficking and theft in respect of maple syrup. The stolen maple syrup, which had a market value of over $18,000,000, passed through the hands of several individuals before it was resold by V, who collected the income and paid his various accomplices. By V’s own admission, he earned $10,000,000 in income from the resale of the syrup obtained by theft or fraud and made a personal profit of nearly $1,000,000, minus certain transportation costs.

Under s. 462.37(3) of the Criminal Code, the trial judge imposed a fine on V in lieu of an order for forfeiture of property that was proceeds of crime (“fine in lieu”). Because the trial judge was of the opinion that he had no choice but to impose a fine equal to the value of the property that was proceeds of crime and that had been in V’s possession or under his control, he ordered V to pay a fine corresponding to the resale value of the maple syrup obtained by theft or fraud, that is, $10,000,000, minus the amount of a restitution order. However, the Court of Appeal reduced that amount to the profit made by V, $1,000,000, minus the amount of the restitution order. It held that courts have the discretion to impose a fine that reflects the profit made from a criminal activity, provided that this penalty meets the dual objective of deprivation of proceeds and deterrence. It was of the view that the fine imposed on V by the trial judge was clearly disproportionate to the objectives of the scheme governing this type of fine and that it created a situation of double recovery in light of the fines imposed on V’s accomplices."

The SCC (9:0) allowed the appeal. Read More...