Tuwanek Ratepayers Association v. Sechelt (District), re-iterates that an Official Community Plan is not a bylaw. It is a document that guides and informs the planning process.
Langford v. Carson Air Ltd., concerns the termination of a probationary aircraft pilot. The test for dismissing probationary employee is discussed in the context of among other things, failure to have an instrument flying rating, flying ilegally and bringing your dog to work letting it loose and defecate in the office.
Pausch v. Abbotsford School District No. 34, is a reminder that defamation matters are generally covered off by a collective agreement. If you are covered by a collective agreement careful consideration will have to be given if a Court action may be brought as opposed to a grievance under the agreement.
Fredrickson v. Newtech Dental Laboratory Inc., 2015 BCCA 357 concerns a termination and the employee’s mitigation effort. The matter at hand involved an offer of re-employment by the terminating employer. I see this often and, and question how a terminated employee could go back to an environment that previously let her go. The Court of Appeal in looking at this issue emphasizes existing caselaw that says mitigation in this context turns on whether there is a sufficient level of trust to allow for a re-continuation of the employment relationship.
Re-employment where the employment relationship is not damaged and a sufficient level of trust remains might be an option but otherwise forget it.
It would be a rare case that I would recommend a re-employment offer to either the employee or an employer.
Milne v. Capital Regional District, concerns defamation by a local government. The case is unusual in that the alleged defamation arises from comments related to a public hearing posted on a local government website. The case seems to be somewhat of a stretch, the defamation if it is that, likely being subject to some form of qualified privilege. Having said that, it does lay out a framework for defamation in this context.