Wayne Beatty v. Canadian Mill Case Study

Separate Opinions: Judgment was affirmed by Judges Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ. , as they believed Allen was discharged for taking unauthorized breaks from her scheduled employment. Since Allen failed to present evidence of a discriminatory motive from Isotoner, or that reason for releasing her from employment was a ground for discrimination, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ. felt only the issues presented by the facts of Isotoner discharging Allen due to ‘unauthorized breaks’ should be decided on, while issues of the facts not directly placed on issue should only be responded to with advisory opinion.

The Whatcott’s case against Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) is a one of the most recent case that emphasized on the issue of “hate speech” and “fundamental freedoms” listed in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Whatcott’s case, four complaints were filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission about the four flyers published and distributed by William Whatcott. In the four flyers, William Whatcott expressed and emphasized strongly on religious convictions against homosexuals. He consistently campaigned against homosexuality, Islam and abortion in Saskatchewan and unfortunately, Whatcott included phrases such as “Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools!” and “Sodomites in our Public Schools”(Criminal case) which can be seen as the hate speech in the flyers.

VA Empl. Comm’n, 1997 Va. App. LEXIS 178 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 1997). (citing Umbarger v. Virginia Empl. Comm’n, 404 S.E.2d 380, 383 (Va. Ct. App. 1990)). In Gardner v. Hercules the court found that an employee who becomes dissatisfied with their work environment must pursue every available option to alleviate or correct the environment before he or she can quit her job. Gardner v. Hercules, Inc., 1996 Va. App. LEXIS 22 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 1996). Furthermore in Smith v. S.W. Rodgers the plaintiff was sexually harassed by direct managers. Smith v. S.W. Rogers Co., 1999 Va. App. LEXIS 436 (Va. Ct. App. July 20, 1999). Plaintiff complained to other managers that were on the same level as the manager who were sexually harassing her, but not to higher management for fear of retaliation. Id. However, plaintiff finally reported it, but decided not to return to work. The court found that although her sexual assault claim was legitimate, the plaintiff had not allowed the situation to resolve prior to quitting and therefore she did not quit with good cause. Id. In order to find “good cause” the court looks for factors or circumstances which

Good post! In regards to Respondent Superior, it brings to mind the case of D.D.N Versus Face, where a young lady was sexually assaulted by an employee of Festivals and Concert Events, Inc. The young lady was sexually assaulted at the festival. The victim asserted claims against FACE for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent retention, respondent superior, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and landowner's negligence. The courts found that there was sufficient evidence that she was sexually assaulted and the company was $750,000.

The central principle against protection for union officers is grounded in the statutory language of § 101(a) of the LMRDA, which states that “every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges.” 29 U.S.C. § 411. Section 101(a)(1) explicitly contains the phrases “every member” and “all members” with no direct reference to officers. As noted in Sheridan v. Carpenters, 50 LRRM 2637 (3rd Cir. 1962), legislative history shows that Congress did not intend to protect union officials. Although the original Senate bill contained the phrase “the right of any member or officer”, the final version omitted the word officers and “speaks only of the right of members” (p. 2641). The court held that this demonstrates congressional

I think there is not AS MUCH child labor like before.But I think it’s because it would be child abusement and enslavement,therefore they could be charged with enslavement and child

This case was actually pretty interesting to me. I can’t help but wonder if the 5’7 height requirement was really the only reason that the airlines didn’t have any female pilots prior to this incident. I find that hard to believe so it makes me think that there is some validity to the plaintiff’s case. However as I read more into the matter the evidence indicated that the height requirement had more to do with being able to effectively operate the plane, yet it still had a disparate impact on women. I think back to the Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell case we read about last week where the court decided that the employer is free to require its employees to stay out of the union in order to keep their jobs (Twomey, 2013). It makes me question

In Canada, there are many controversies over the logging industry. Logging is one of Canada’s major industries, as it supplies countries all over the world. Wood is one of the most used materials in society. There are many reasons why logging is controversial. People all across the world rely on Canada for it’s logging industry to build buildings, houses, and is used in everyday materials.

Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2015 ABCA 225 (“Stewart”), a recent case from the Alberta Court of Appeal, highlights the potential ability for employers to discipline or terminate employees for failing to follow addiction disclosure policies.

Failure to provide reasonable notice, is grounds for wrongful dismissal. Therefore, the court has to consider certain criteria, established in Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., [1960] O.W.N. 253 (H.C.J.), to decide whether or not Cooper received enough termination notice. A relevant factor is Cooper’s age; 48 years old. Generally, employees are supposed to receive a greater termination notice the closer they are to 50 years old. Cooper’s position within the company is also a relevant factor in wrongfully dismissal, and for

He alleged the claimant’s termination attributed to the several verbal warnings he gave to the claimant during the last two years of her employment. He states he did not document each incident but informed the Human Resources Manager, Mrs. Jessica McClellan of the claimant’s insubordinate behavior.

This section concentrates on Beedie’s main competitors and potential investors for their Fraser Mill project. Mosaic Homes, Onni Group of Companies and Bosa Properties are closely examined as competitors, due to their influence not only in the Coquitlam area, but also across the Lower Mainland as successful developers. From the research gathered, their strengths will be examined to understand how they became successful and what opportunities they have as a company. Current Master Plan Communities are also analyzed to understand what factors contributed to their success and what features or amenities potential consumers value when purchasing their home.

Home Depot was claimed to receive summary disposition by the plaintiff who is a former employee. According to what was written in the report, “The employee was terminated after he kissed a married employee he supervised while the two were not at the store.” The plaintiff, Chris Goodrich, did a lawsuit against a home improvement store. As stated in the report, the plaintiff was complaining that he was terminated in violation of the Whistleblower's Protection Act (WPA) and the § 8 of the Bullard-Plawecki employee right to know act which is “an act to permit employees to review personnel records; to provide criteria for the review; to prescribe the information which may be contained in personnel records; and to provide penalties.” There were two basic allegations that employer did that resulted in the lawsuit.

Canada and the United States have always shared a familial relationship both politically and economically. The transfer of capital, labour and market between these two has been entrenched and institutionalized on many levels throughout their history. Despite such positive relations, one particular sector of the economy has undergone intense scrutiny and friction, which is that of the softwood lumber trade. Since the 1980’s this has been a hotly-contested and debated issue between the two economies, with both sides sharing perspectives of indifference constantly. Both nations share a large geographical land area that allows them to export lumber en masse globally, but particular arguments have revolved around the practices of both opposing sides in their trade with one another. This paper’s aim is to produce an analysis on the historical origin, evolution, and current reality of the lumber dispute today.

David works in Johnson Industrial, which is a small auto parts manufacturer. This workforce is non-union. David has been employed as a production Operator for 20 years; his last drawn salary was $2500. However the company wants to lay off 15 production workers in order to face increased competition in automobile industry. David is very distressed about losing his job and he is dwelling on taking legal action against Johnson Industrial.