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
BREACH OF CONTRACT 7/27/2010
Court rules apprenticeship agreement not a fixed contract; strikes down $100,000 in punitive damages
HEALTH AND SAFETY 7/22/2010
Courts fine employers as well as employees involved in violations involving worker injuries
WORKERS' COMPENSATION 7/16/2010
Application for workers’ compensation was initially denied because he wasn’t working when injured but appeal tribunal recognized officer’s oath applies all the time
WRONGFUL DISMISSAL 7/13/2010
Employer claimed employee resigned to have operation and chemotherapy but employee said she just wanted some time off
TECHNOLOGY 7/12/2010
Middle East affairs editor praised Hezbollah leader; network concerned about credibility
Desire to see “world’s smallest porn star” perform outweighed department policy for officer
CURRENT ISSUE
Jul. 28, 2010
NEXT ISSUE
August 25, 2010
Selective enforcement of hard hat rule on construction site was discriminatory: Tribunal
Alberta employer’s coverage of almost $150,000 spent by employee challenging union merger ruled an unfair labour practice
Worker fired for punching co-worker, but was suffering from depression that should have been accommodated: Board
 
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