LANCASTER HOUSE - Labour Employment and Human Rights Law Publishers



	Feb 8/2010

Supreme Court decides Wal-Mart case on narrow grounds, Quebec law different from rest of Canada Posted December 2, 2009 [A second version of this report, with excerpts from the majority and minority judgments, is also provided below. Each version is accompanied by a link to the full text of the decision.] By a 6-3 vote, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada has held that, where a business in Quebec is closed, employees who are dismissed cannot seek reinstatement, a remedy that is normally available under section 15 of the Quebec Labour Code, even though the business is closed to avoid a union. Moreover, the majority held, where a closing occurs, the "reverse onus" provision in section 17 of the Code – which presumes that dismissal of an employee engaged in union activity is the result of anti-union reprisal, unless the employer provides good and sufficient reason – does not apply, because closing of a business in itself constitutes good and sufficient reason for the dismissal. (more) Supreme Court decides Wal-Mart case on narrow grounds, Quebec law different from rest of Canada Posted December 2, 2009 [This version of the report on the Wal-Mart case includes excerpts from the majority and minority judgements.] By a 6-3 vote, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada has held that, where a business in Quebec is closed, employees who are dismissed cannot seek reinstatement, a remedy that is normally available under section 15 of the Quebec Labour Code, even though the business is closed to avoid a union. Moreover, the majority held, where a closing occurs, the "reverse onus" provision in section 17 of the Code – which presumes that dismissal of an employee engaged in union activity is the result of anti-union reprisal, unless the employer provides good and sufficient reason – does not apply, because closing of a business in itself constitutes good and sufficient reason for the dismissal. (more)





(To view samples of E-Bulletins click on the title links below. For more information or to subscribe, click here.)

College and University Employment Law Was grievance improperly filed as policy grievance? Is peer assessment bargaining unit work for which students must be paid? Employment Standards Law Is employer required to continue contributing to dental fund for employee on pregnancy and parental leave? Are permanently disabled employees entitled to severance pay? Federal Labour & Employment Law Does definition of "strike" that includes refusal to cross picket line breach Charter rights? Are health and safety of crew on federally regulated vessels subject to provincial legislation? Health Care Employment Law Does manager's concern for pregnant nurse's health override medical opinion supporting return to work? Did collective agreement provision require arbitration of insured disability benefit claims? Health & Safety/Workers’ Compensation Law $100,000 fine upheld by Alberta court for failing to ensure worker safety "Motor vehicle accident" exception to lawsuit bar for occupational injuries – Is forklift a motor vehicle? Labour Arbitration Did implementation of reduced work week violate the collective agreement? Was employer directly liable for provision of LTD benefits? Was employee's claim for LTD benefits arbitrable? Labour Law New immigration regulations – crackdown on exploitative employers – or on foreign workers? Women/Pay Equity Employment Law Was dismissal of single parent for refusing overtime due to childcare obligations "family status" discrimination? Was employee's failure to file internal complaint an excuse for employer lack of response to sexual harassment?

Important Legal Notices

By accessing this web site and any pages thereof, you agree to be bound by the terms of the Legal Notices. If you do not agree with the terms of these Legal Notices, do not access this web site or any pages thereof.

Sample Audio Conference

Barrie^NEW!
Sudbury ^NEW!
Thunder Bay ^NEW!
Toronto ^NEW!

Dogs are people too

OSLO, Norway – The Norwegian Supreme Court has ruled that police dogs are public servants, making an assault on a police dog as serious as an attack on any police officer. (more)

Federal Labour & Employment Law