Significant Decisions

Question 1

Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud (1992)

Answer 1

• The duty to accommodate sometimes require violating a collective agreement to enable accommodation
• A union is obligated by that duty to participate in the accommodation process
• Supreme Court Ruled that a collective agreement term “cannot absolve the parties form the duty to accommodate”, since no one can contract out of human rights legislation obligation
• There was no evidence that allowing an employee to work Sunday - Thursday would cause undue hardship on the employer, union, or other employees.
• Employer and union were equally liable for the employees lost wages and employer had to reinstate employee the Sunday - Thursday shift

Question 2

Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway (2004)

Answer 2

• The installation of video serveillence cameras was acceptable under PIPEDA because a “reasonable person” would consider the cameras appropriate in the circumstances due to concerns of over theft and vandalism
• Cameras were not surreptitious and the collection of personal information was not continuous as the footage was deleted after 96 hours
• Security and deterrence purposes of the employer outweighs minor the minor privacy interests of employees who images might be recorded and employee consent is not required

Question 3

Jones v. Tsige (2012)

Answer 3

• The court recognized a new common law tort for breach of privacy called it a right of action for “infusion upon seclusion”.
• To establish the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” a plaintiff must demonstrate
  1. the conduct was intentional
  2. an invasion took place into the plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns without lawful justification
  3. the invasion was highly offensive such that it would have cause distress, humiliation, or anguish to a reasonable person
• The court established a cop on general damages available to individuals who successfully establish the tort of intursion upon seclusion. (max is $20,000)

Question 4

R. v. Barton-Upon-Irwell (1814)

Answer 4

• Worker was hired for a year but after two months was convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for disobeying the master
• After nine days the employer requested the employee be returned, but after returning employee was again charged
• Employee argued that the first conviction ended the employment contact.
• Until the ruling was over ruled in 1857, conviction for misbehaviour or desertion fit not bring the contract to an end, but rather the worker had to return to work after imprisonment and court be recommitted again and again until the contract’s term came to an end

Question 5

Turner v. Mason (1845)

Answer 5

Employee was terminated for cause such that there was no contractual requirement to provide notice of termination

• Courts ruled that employees are required to obey all lawful orders of the employer. In this case the order to not leave the house was lawful and there was a breach by the employee leaving
• The court was not moved by the employees reasoning as the courts role is not to assess the fairness or kindness of the employer actions but to enforce the contracts as they understood it.
• The court did recognize that exceptional circumstances might arise in which an employee could be justified in ignoring orders (i.e. preventing harm to themselves), but this was not one of them.

Question 6

Queen v. Cognos Inc. (1993)

Answer 6

• The tort of negligent misrepresentation apply to the pre-employment recruitment process
• Cognos committed this tort by failing to make clear the job in question was contingent on funding that was yet to be confirmed
• resulted in Courts listed the elements that must be proven to make our a case of negligent misrepresentation
  1. There must be a duty of care based on a “special relationship” between the representor and the representee
  2. The representation in question must be untrue, inaccurate, or misleading
  3. The representor must have acted negligently in making said misrepresentation
  4. The representee must have relied on in a reasonable manner on said negligent misrepresentation
  5. The reliance must have been detrimental to the representee in the sense that damages resulted
• the employer representative kept important information to themselves allowing Queen to form the opinion that the job was secure.
• Cognos was ordered to pay $50,00in lost income and the loss of $12,000 Queen had on selling the house they had bought for the job, and $5,000 for emotional stress

Question 7

Rejdak v. Fight Network Inc. (2008)

Answer 7

• ## Parties entered into a verbal employment contract during a telephone conversation