Comments for First Reference Talks

Comment on Can employers in Canada refuse to hire smokers? by Adam Gorley

Adam Gorley — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:40:41 +0000

I believe smoking (i.e., nicotine) is recognized as an addiction, as Simon mentions, which would engage the question of discrimination.

Comment on Can employers in Canada refuse to hire smokers? by Alison Maas

Alison Maas — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:46:09 +0000

Even though as a non-smoking employer I support the actions of Momentous Corp, I am surprised they have even attempted to take this position, given the extent to which employers are expected to be uber-PC here in Canada. The additional economic cost of hiring smokers is interesting information however, whether we can do anything about it or not.

Comment on Can employers in Canada refuse to hire smokers? by sarah gayer

sarah gayer — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:28:16 +0000

Where in Human Rights does it say that smokers are now protected under one of the grounds and if so which ground are they protected as smoking has not be recognized by human rights as an addiction/disability. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Comment on Expanded citizen’s arrest law and the Canadian workplace by David Hyde

David Hyde — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:21:59 +0000

Hi Corey,

There are a number of legal considerations and precedents on citizen’s arrest that need to be navigated and this is not the forum to set out the various cases, interpretations and viewpoints. If you reach out to me via e-mail (info@davidhyde.ca) I’d be happy to set up a time to connect for a brief chat over the telephone on the issues.

David Hyde

Comment on CIC announces proposed changes to the definition of ‘dependent children’ by Lourdes

Lourdes — Thu, 30 May 2013 20:29:53 +0000

I hope and pray that immigration officials should consider the situation of live- in caregivers who are already here before January 1, 2014 but who can not yet submit their permanent resident application before the proposed date of implementation. A mother like me who had not been with his son for 7 years now and hoping to be reunited with him thru the family sponsorship program this news just broke all my hopes and dreams of bringing my son here. It seems that all my sacrifices is in vain after all. When I got my annulment decision and decided to stay here in Canada it is with the hope that me and my son could start a new life here. The implementation if this new rule would not just kill all my hopes and dreams but also would break the hearts of all mothers like me who left their sons and daughters and came to work here in Canada with the hope that in the future would be reunited with them. We all counted years to earn and save and this lasted for several years while our sons and daughters grew older thru all those years of being away from them. We were not there thru their growing years, we were caring for our employers children, a very big sacrifice for a mother to make. Just when we thought we could be with them in a few more years, our hopes are crashed…please have a little heart and consider our plight.

Comment on Court of Appeal hints that right to strike may be protected by the Constitution by Christina Catenacci

Christina Catenacci — Wed, 22 May 2013 20:38:59 +0000

Hi John,

Thanks for your comment. Check out paragraph 67 of the decision:

“Accordingly, none of what I have written above is to suggest
or presume that, if again confronted directly with the issue, the Supreme Court
would not bring strike activity within the ambit of s. 2(d). Such a conclusion can
certainly be reached, as indeed it was reached by Dickson C.J. in the Labour
Trilogy”

Some believe that the Court of Appeal did not wish to create a decision that was in conflict with principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Labour Trilogy…hinting that any reversal of precedent will have to occur at the Supreme Court of Canada…and this may very well be the case for the court to take the opportunity to revisit its precedents…

Comment on Court of Appeal hints that right to strike may be protected by the Constitution by John Beckman

John Beckman — Wed, 22 May 2013 05:00:08 +0000

This is really spin doctoring the decision. My firm appeared at the Court of Appeal for an intervenor the University of Saskatchewan. Whatever the Supreme Court may do
If leave is granted is anyone guess but the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s decision is a clear unambiguous loss for labour. It overturned the Queen’s Bench and said there is no constitutional right to strike. This decision in the highest Court of a Province which has 50 years of socialist government is a resounding loss for Labour
And the ILO material was of no persuasive weight at all.

Comment on CIC announces outstanding details of the Federal Skilled Worker Program by Latha Sukumar

Latha Sukumar — Tue, 21 May 2013 13:23:34 +0000

I was at a wedding reception recently, where immigrant parents who had made a living as factory workers or administrative staff showed off their children who were doctors, lawyers and investment bankers. All those who denounce our past Immigration Policy of attracting human capital rather than one which creates a resume bank, as the present one does, are being truly short-sighted. Those who come merely to fill jobs will not have the same rootedness and stake in Canada to remain when their jobs are gone. We cannot bank on their kids to become contributing members of our society. Yes immigrants complained that they came here with a hope of finding jobs in their fields of expertise and did not.
By that they meant:
- manage people’s expectations better when you communicate your immigration policy that attracts human capital;
- penalise employment practices that prevent immigrants from getting jobs based on ethnocentrism.

Not, throw out the Immigration Policy, that attracts human capital, altogether?

Also, the emphasis on English and French hurts us greatly. By shutting out the majority of folks who may have trouble communicating in English, but are experts in their fields we lower the standards for people we can attract and our prospects for innovating in a competitive global economy.
This will surely be remembered as Canada’s missed opportunity!

Comment on Expanded citizen’s arrest law and the Canadian workplace by Corey Bertrand

Corey Bertrand — Thu, 16 May 2013 11:14:30 +0000

Good day, I have just recently started a new job in the Position of Regional Loss Prevention Manager. I am a former Military Police Officer with the Canadian Forces and have taught Law at the Military Police Academy for 2 years. I am baffled with some of the Policies and Procedures with regards to Loss Prevention Officers Powers of Arrest and “Detention” within the Company. My question is:
Q. The company policy states ” once an LP has RG that a person has committed the Crime of Theft/Shoplifting, they can ask the subject to come back to their office to discuss the incident, or what they call “Voluntary Detention”. In my experience, once RPG is established, it is automatically an Arrest. There is no such things as Voluntary Detention. Also, once they conduct this voluntary detention, they do not Caution or Charter……? Security guards or LP do not hold the authority to conduct Investigative Detention, (for weapons only) especially in their case, it seems to me that they are violating their Charter by conducting a Voluntary Detention, especially when they question the subject on the incident without giving them their RTC and Caution.

Am I wrong in all of this? I would really like some help here!

Comment on Violence and threats against lawyers is a growing concern in Canada by David Hyde

David Hyde — Fri, 10 May 2013 18:12:49 +0000

Sarnia lawyer targeted by opposing party in family estate settlement:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/archives/sunnews/canada/2013/05/20130510-133258.html