Photo: flickr/[US Embassy Canada]
By Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle
Reposted from LawNow 43(4) with permission.
The right to be protected from persecution is an international human right. Under Canada’s immigration laws, a person in Canada can claim status as a Convention Refugee or as a Person in Need of Protection.
Read MorePhoto: flickr/[Alana Post]
By Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle
Reposted from LawNow 43(4) with permission.
Requesting medical information from employees may raise privacy issues. Employees have the right to keep their medical information confidential and private. But employers also have the right to know about their employees’ illness or disability, and have the right to seek medical information in order to provide appropriate accommodation. So, how can we balance the two?
Read MorePhoto:flickr/[whitesun12]
By Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle
On January 4, 2019, Madam Justice Dawn Pentelechuk found that Mr. Ryan Prystay’s lengthy stay in administrative segregation at the Edmonton Remand Centre breached section 12 of the Charter. Consequently, she granted him enhanced credit of 3.75 days for each day spent in administrative segregation.
Read MorePhoto: flickr/[RCMP Musical Ride—Sunset Ceremonies]
by Rowan Hickie
In the wake of the #MeToo movement, mainstream awareness surrounding workplace harassment and bullying has expanded beyond the borders of Hollywood. One such workplace that has seen increased awareness of harassment has been the RCMP. While RCMP employees have been coming forward about the harassment and abuse they experienced in the workplace for many years, the past few years have seen not only an increase in the number of RCMP members coming forward and public awareness and interest in the issue, but also government and institutional response.
Read MoreIn 1899, Treaty 8 was negotiated with several First Nations groups in Northern Alberta—North East Saskatchewan, Southwest parts of the Northwest Territories and later Eastern British Columbia—resulting in land surrender to the Crown. However, members of the Lubicon Lake Band were left out of the negotiations. This launched several decades of claims and disputes between Lubicon people and the federal and provincial governments. While the Lubicons continued to live in their traditional ways, the province of Alberta leased areas of the disputed lands for oil and gas development and provided permits for harvesting lumber using clear cut methods. These activities had negative impacts on the Lubicon people. The dispute became known across Canada and the world when Amnesty International and the United Nations became involved.
Read Morehttps://://www.flickr.com/photos/sallybuck/
The Appellant, Her Majesty the Queen, appealed a Rowbotham order granted by Justice DRG Thomas on March 11, 2016, which directed the Alberta government to pay Mr. Vader’s (the Respondent’s) legal fees for work previously completed. The order also allowed a publication ban, a sealing order and an in camera hearing of the Rowbotham application.
Read Morehttps://public domain
LL sued her former employer Canadian Natural Resources Ltd (CNRL) for damages for its failure to protect her (as her employer) from ongoing sexual harassment and abuse. LL also claimed damages for constructive dismissal. CNRL applied to have the actions summarily dismissed or for an order to have portions of LL’s claims struck (at paras 1-3).
CNRL employed LL for approximately four years (2010 to 2014) as a Testing Technician. LL alleged that beginning on her first day of work (on Shift A), she experienced verbal, emotional and sexual harassment, discrimination and abuse from her male colleagues and the male team lead (at para 4). The types of harassment and abuse included (at para 5):
Inappropriate and discriminatory comments against Aboriginal people;
Inappropriate and discriminatory comments against women;
Inappropriate sexual comments;
Inappropriate and unwanted sexual contact;
Breaches of her privacy when her supervisor illegally obtained her home address and visited her home uninvited;
Her supervisor stalking her by telephone and in person;
Unlawful coercion of the Respondent into a sexual relationship with her supervisor under threat of being fired; and
Belittling and demeaning treatment of the Respondent in the presence of other team members.
https://www.flickr.com/eric parker
Recently, there has been much discussion of the use of the notwithstanding clause, which is section 33(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). Section 33(1) reads:
Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
Section 33(3) provides that a declaration made under section 33(1) shall cease to have effect after five years and section 33(4) states that a declaration may be re-enacted by Parliament or the legislatures.
Read Morehttps://www.flickr.com/orange shirt day across delta
For the past few decades, there has been growing publicity about the over-representation of Indigenous and other minority children in our child welfare systems across Canada. The 2015 findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission confirmed that the over-representation of Indigenous children in Canadian child welfare systems has reached a crisis level. Even the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2012 noted that Canada needed to take urgent measures to address the “discriminatory over-representation” of Indigenous children who were in “out-of-home” care. The Ontario Human Rights Commission recently released a report called Interrupted Childhoods: Over-representation of Indigenous and Black children in Ontario child welfare (February 2018) and this report confirms what others have been saying.
Read Morehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonwoodhead23
Case Commented On: Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v Alberta, 2018 ABQB 524 (AUPE)
Justice GS Dunlop of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently heard an application for judicial review of a three-day suspension and termination of a long-standing employee of the Province of Alberta. For just about 30 years, Todd Ross (Ross) was a Correctional Peace Officer (CPO) employed by the Province. He was a member of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) and was also a union representative (AUPE at para 1). In April 2013, a new Edmonton Remand Centre opened (AUPE at para 2). Ross had been terminated on June 28, 2013 on three grounds:
His communication with management about the new Edmonton Remand Centre in April 2013; Ross wrote and sent two emails to the Executive Director and the Assistant Executive Director of the new Edmonton Remand Centre, which the arbitrator had described Ross as ‘insolent, insubordinate and untruthful’; Ross had also erred when he addressed his comments to the Deputy Minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister;
His actions when he was relieved with pay on April 26, 2013; and
His actions while he was on leave with pay after April 26, 2013; the employer alleged that Ross had induced other CPOs to engage in an illegal strike between April 26 and May 3, 2013—however, the arbitrator held that this allegation was not proven (AUPE at paras 10 and 11).
