Edmonton Employment Law

 So the newest 'scandal' is that Paul Bernardo, basically the epitome of evil within the Canadian context, has been reclassified into a medium security institution. Poilievre thinks this is outrageous, and that the government should just pass a regulation saying that a 'class' of offenders that captures Bernardo - say, 'multiple murderers' - automatically and always get maximum security classification. So let's look at this: Is it possible? Short answer is 'probably not'. It's a pretty superficial and simplistic understanding of Ministerial powers. The Framework We start here with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act , which governs our prison administration. Section 29.1 allows the Commissioner of Corrections to classify different institutions as maximum, medium, minimum, or multi-level security, and directs the CSC to assign classifications to each inmate, in accordance with the directions in the regulations. They have to give reasons fo...

I'm going to move this discussion into Blog format, because I'm running into issues dealing with it via Twitter. One of the UCP's favourite lines of attack is to try to paint the Alberta NDP and the labour movement - all the unions and labour organizations in the Province - as one singular monolith. Their hands-down favourite target is CUPE Alberta, because Rachel Notley's husband, Lou Arab, is a member of their communications team. So they like to pretend that CUPE is just an extension of the NDP, that all their communications are just Notley's husband advocating for the party - instead of, you know, operating under the oversight and instruction of CUPE's internal management, in service of their membership interests. Now, the UCP has written to Elections Alberta complaining about political involvement of CUPE, the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL), and the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA). The first UCP letter is actually a useful read , because it helps hig...

Artur Pawlowski was charged in connection with the Coutts blockade, where he delivered a speech to fire up the protesters, telling them to hold the line even against the police, and comparing the blockade to the Alamo (where a group of fighters seeking Texan independence famously fought against the Mexican army and were massacred, and became a rallying cry to others to join the cause). His charges included mischief, breach of a release order, and a violation of Alberta's Critical Infrastructure Defence Act . So both Criminal Code  and Provincial charges. Today, he was convicted of mischief and breach of release order. The judge has delayed ruling on the CIDA  charge because Pawlowski is making a constitutional challenge against it. (You may recall that CIDA  was famously and controversially Jason Kenney's flagship legislation.) This is timely, in respect of the election, because this is the same person who Smith tried to help with his case in the now-infamous recording. S...

 There's been an ongoing controversy in law as to whether courts should recognize a new common law tort of harassment. The tension is clear: There clearly are  scenarios where a person's conduct doesn't fit into any established tort categories, but is sufficiently wrong and injurious that it seems fair to hold the perpetrator accountable; but on the other hand, harassment as a concept is extraordinarily broad, basically encompassing any unwelcome behaviour, so how do you craft such a tort in a way that doesn't create a floodgates of neighbour disputes and family drama getting litigated in the courts? Recently, the Alberta Court of King's Bench concluded that such a tort exists , and that Kevin J. Johnston - a controversial figure with many legal troubles - committed it against an AHS employee. (For those who haven't heard of KJJ...lucky you. I've known about him for quite a few years, ever since he and his 'Mississauga Gazette' actively opposed the b...

 I have not generally regarded myself as particularly 'partisan'. I'm not one to stand up and defend the indefensible from a politician I otherwise like, nor to attack something utterly benign from a politician I dislike. (I may give the benefit of the doubt to a politician I respect, but that's not the same thing.) I've certainly never claimed to be 'apolitical', but I've seldom worn any party colour. I've voted, from time to time, for three different Federal parties. I've occasionally maintained membership in some parties; when I do, it's not necessarily the same  party; and I've even had simultaneous Provincial and Federal memberships in non-aligned parties. But when I reflect on the first several Provincial and Federal elections in my lifetime, what strikes me is how MOST of them were contests between two parties largely viable governing options, if with platforms, leaders, and ideologies that one may or may not find objectionable. Mo...

 In any framework where a statute provides entitlements and a process for recourse, it's important to work out the way that these entitlements interact with traditional rights and remedies that would otherwise be recognized by a court. With employment standards legislation, it's really clear that the government isn't displacing  other entitlements that employees might have, but just creating minimums. But the more difficult and varied question is about process : Can I pursue a statutory claim in court? What if I pursue a similar  claim to a statutory entitlement in court, like pay in lieu of notice as compared to statutory termination pay? Can I still go after the statutory entitlement? Or vice versa? Some statutes are more explicit than others on this: In Ontario, for example, you can assert a claim for statutory entitlements in a court claim, leading to outcomes like Render , but you have to pick one : You can't pursue both the statutory process and the court process ...

 I've remarked before about the practice of the courts looking at the failure of a dismissed employee to take reasonable steps to mitigate and then applying some discount  to their entitlements on that basis, because they might  have successfully mitigated - without necessarily being satisfied that the would have  successfully mitigated. This is problematic, because it's been a critical part of wrongful dismissal mitigation law for nearly fifty years that failure to mitigate is a two-stage test, with the onus upon the defendant to show: That the Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to reduce their loss; AND Had the Plaintiff taken reasonable steps, they would have successfully reduced their loss. Outside of cases where the 'failure' is in actually turning down a position , the second stage tends to be a difficult test, requiring the employer to prove a hypothetical surrounding the availability of work for the employee. But it's supposed  to be a high burde...