• The distinction between a "layoff" and a termination;
• The application of the common law to employees who are federally regulated and to whom the Canada Labour Code applies;
• Whether rejecting an employer's offer of re-employment constitutes a failure to mitigate damages; and
• The legal test for judicial bias.

1. No duty of "procedural fairness" is owed by an employer to an employee, even when the employer is a public body.
2. Reliance can be placed on after-acquired evidence of just cause that existed at the time of termination.

On the question of law posed, I conclude that, as a matter of law, the double criminality requirement for extradition is capable of being met in this case. The effects of the US sanctions may properly play a role in the double criminality analysis as part of the background or context against which the alleged conduct is examined. Ms. Meng’s application is therefore dismissed. I make no determination of the larger question under s. 29(1)(a) of the Act of whether there is evidence admissible under the Act that the alleged conduct would justify Ms. Meng’s committal for trial in Canada on the offence of fraud under s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. This question will be determined at a later stage in the proceedings.

Employees are entitled to claim damages for loss of alternate compensation methods, particularly where that benefit is an integral part of their compensation, unless there is a contractual term limiting that employee's common law rights upon termination. Where a plan contains terms that limit or place conditions on the payment of a bonus, the question the Courts must determine is whether the wording of the bonus plan was sufficient to limit the employee's common law right to damages for lost compensation. . . . In that regard, the plan language must be clear and unequivocal, and it must be understood by the employee that their right to entitlements under the plan will not persist through the reasonable notice period.

The BC Supreme Court rejected the employee's argument and stayed the action in favour of arbitration. In doing so, the Court noted a distinction between the wording of the respective "minimum standards" provisions of the BC and Ontario ESA. Regarding the BC ESA, the Court stated that "it is not obvious that a statutory complaint/investigative mechanism becomes an employment standard itself rather than a procedure for enforcing employment standards."

On January 24, 2020, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision in Bank of Montreal v. Li (2018 FC 1298). This decision serves as confirmation that federally-regulated employees who sign releases in favour of their former employers will not be barred from bringing complaints for unjust dismissal under the Canada Labour Code ("CLC"), provided that they do so within 90 days of the dismissal.

1. the enforceability of a new or varied employment contract;
2. when a dismissed employee may succeed with a claim for aggravated damages; and
3. when an employer is entitled to the benefit of a dismissed employee's mitigation earnings in cases of a fixed term contract.

2019 brought several notable cases impacting employment and labour law. We have put together a brief summary of 10 Canadian decisions we . . . should be aware of as we head into 2020.

• there is a serious issue to be tried; and
• the employer will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted (i.e. harm that cannot be quantified in monetary terms or cannot be cured by the payment of damages).

Thus, even had I found that the social media posts amounted to an accumulation of misconduct and that the October 5th blog was the tipping point supporting the plaintiff's termination for cause, I find that ITU cannot rely upon cumulative cause as a ground for the plaintiff's termination because ITU did not give the plaintiff an 'express and clear' warning about her performance relating to the social media posts, and a reasonable opportunity to improve her performance after warning her. I should also say in this regard, that counsel for ITU conceded that ITU should not be able to rely upon the proof of the truth of the content of Mr. Beeche's letter in support of its position on cumulative cause, as he was not called to testify as a witness at the trial. In fact, the plaintiff's alleged conduct complained about in the letter was not even brought to her attention until after her termination.

There can be no doubt that in Canadian law, a partnership is not a separate entity from its partners, and a partner cannot be an employee of, or employed by, a partnership of which he is a member.

1. the level of control exercised by the businesses over the worker’s activities;
2. whether the worker performs services exclusively or almost exclusively for one business and is “economically dependent”;
3. whether the worker provides his/her own equipment, expertise and helpers;
4. the level of integration between the worker’s services and the business;
5. the degree of financial risk to the worker; and
6. the worker’s opportunity for profit.

'It only took 150 years, but we look forward to a much brighter future. This without question will establish a solid platform for genuine reconciliation to take place in British Columbia.'- Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs

"We all heard the decision at the same moment, and the room just erupted in cheers and tears. Everybody is absolutely jubilant. It's very emotional," Phillip told CBC News.

"It only took 150 years, but we look forward to a much brighter future. This without question will establish a solid platform for genuine reconciliation to take place in British Columbia.

"I didn't think it would be so definitive," Phillip added. "I was actually prepared for something much less. It's not very often that I'm without words, and I'm quite overwhelmed at the moment."

...Confidentiality...[T]he plaintiff shall not either directly or indirectly, disclose, discuss or communicate to any entity or person, except his attorneys or other professional advisors or spouse any information whatsoever regarding the existence or terms of this Agreement...A breach...will result in disgorgement of the Plaintiffs portion of the settlement Payments.

Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver...Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.

Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to...His daughter then did precisely what the confidentiality agreement was designed to prevent.

1. As a general rule, a plaintiff cannot succeed unless she shows as a matter of fact that she would not have suffered the loss “but for” the negligent act or acts of the defendant. A trial judge is to take a robust and pragmatic approach to determining if a plaintiff has established that the defendant’s negligence caused her loss. Scientific proof of causation is not required.
2. Exceptionally, a plaintiff may succeed by showing that the defendant’s conduct materially contributed to risk of the plaintiff’s injury, where (a) the plaintiff has established that her loss would not have occurred “but for” the negligence of two or more tortfeasors, each possibly in fact responsible for the loss; and (b) the plaintiff, through no fault of her own, is unable to show that any one of the possible tortfeasors in fact was the necessary or “but for” cause of her injury, because each can point to one another as the possible “but for” cause of the injury, defeating a finding of causation on a balance of probabilities against anyone.