Edmonton Employment Law

There's a piece published on CBC News Opinion this week, arguing that Canada should invoke the notwithstanding clause to facilitate the prosecution of returning ISIS fighters.  The piece is authored by Brian Cox, a former US military lawyer and prosecutor, currently at Queen's Law as a visiting scholar. And his suggestion is one that ought to be rejected out of hand. Put briefly, he's arguing that the self-imposed constraints on our domestic legal system shouldn't impact our prosecution of offences that are committed overseas; that carrying out prosecutions under the auspices of those constraints makes these prosecutions unduly difficult; and that the protections aren't necessary when it relates to offences committed outside the country, because the kinds of government overreach against which the Charter protects aren't really concerns when we're talking about overseas conduct. The argument is specious, for a few reasons, but the one of the most impor

Last week, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Manastersky v. Royal Bank of Canada . Mr. Manastersky was entitled to an 18 month notice period, and the appeal turned on certain entitlements under a variable compensation plan known as the 'Mezzanine Carried Interest Plan', in which he participated for the last ~9 years of his employment. The Mezzanine CIP is complicated.  If I'm understanding it correctly, RBC established two investment funds under the plan, and allocated a certain number of 'points' to Mr. Manastersky, which would result in entitlements based on the growth of those funds over time.  The plan also contemplated the possible establishment of a third fund after the investment period for the first two ended - which, under the terms of the plan, would begin automatically, unless otherwise terminated by RBC. Mr. Manastersky was dismissed in February 2014, when the second fund was approaching the end of its investment period.  Around

In a recent decision from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Justice Mah dealt with an unusual scenario : Last year, Orbis Engineering Field Services was sold, in a share transaction, to Spark Power Corp.  Its former principal and CEO, Mr. Kassam, was kept on as an employee until he was dismissed at the end of April, 2019. In the same time frame, a number of other Orbis employees departed, and some of them set up a competing business, Taifa Engineering Ltd.  Among them, Mr. Saleh actually set up the business (including certain preparatory steps while he was still at Orbis, which would not generally be improper); Mr. Mohamed, who was involved in the initial setup of the corporation, but claims that he renounced his shares and directorship shortly after incorporation and well before Taifa began doing business, and has had no connection with the corporation since that time (though he was dismissed by Orbis after Taifa began operating); Mr. Steyn, who resigned his employment to jo