Search:      
Login:   Email:    Password:  
Ask an Expert
Leading employment lawyers field questions from subscribers.
Case In Point
An in-depth look at a must-know fact of employment law.
Cases and Trends
Recent cases and what they mean.
Legislation Watch
From Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia and all points in between. A national roundup of legislation employers need to know about.
You Make the Call
Read the facts of the case and decide for yourself.
From the Courts
JUST CAUSE 3/9/2010
Manager ignored conflict of interest policy when he recommended companion’s company to do photographic work for project consultant
HEALTH AND SAFETY 3/2/2010
Second time charges laid in Ontario under Bill C-45 since it came into effect
NEGLIGENCE 2/23/2010
Top court agrees with appeal court that mine owners, security firm and union weren’t liable for striking worker’s planting of bomb that killed nine miners
HUMAN RIGHTS 2/17/2010
Human rights tribunal found owner frequently taunted South Asian employees and fired dispatcher after she stood up to him
EMP. STANDARDS 2/11/2010
Statement of claim accuses brokerage company of 80-hour work weeks and poor recordkeeping
Management said using store’s kennel facility to keep his dog while he worked overnight shift was theft of service
CURRENT ISSUE
Feb. 24, 2010
NEXT ISSUE
March 10, 2010
Boss’ behaviour made employee feel uncomfortable even before first day at work
Even if an employee says ‘I quit,’ the surrounding circumstances must be considered before accepting a resignation
Furor over sleeping Toronto transit employee a reminder there are many factors to consider before firing for cause
 
The law requires employers must accommodate employees to the point of "undue hardship," but what does this mean?
In this Jan. 14, 2009, article, employment lawyer Catherine Milne discusses some cases that help define the limits of undue hardship.
3 notable cases in 2008 helped redefine the test for what constitutes ‘undue hardship’ when accommodating employees with disabilities