Donald Trump has angrily denounced the three judges hearing his travel ban appeal, describing the process as “disgraceful” and saying it was a “sad day” for the United States.
Source: Donald Trump launches blistering attack on judges in ‘disgraceful’ travel ban hearing and calls it ‘a sad day’
Trump has now impugned 5 judges including three appellate level Judges of the ninth circuit. And that is in the context of addressing Police Chiefs whose staff must deal with the judiciary everyday of their working lives. Fine for a Kingdom, not so for a Constitutional Republic.
Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority), 2017 BCSC 42, deal with probationary employee termination rights. Surprising that this case was actually litigated given the very small amount the claim was worth. Employer termination rights are limited and the employee must be given a fair and reasonable consideration.
Atlas Painting & Restorations Ltd. v. 501 Robson Residential Partnership, 2016 BCSC 2472, concerns an inflated builder’s lien. Should you or shouldn’t you? It’s worth a read to summarize some of the principles underlying lien filings.
Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail c. Caron, 2015 QCCA 1048 (CanLII), concerns accommodation of an injured employee. The Court in this case says that the human rights legislation supersedes all other legislation and is quasi-constitutional in nature. The employer cannot remove themselves from the human rights regime on the basis of other legislation.
Styles v Alberta Investment Management Corporation, 2015 ABQB 621 (CanLII), concerns an employer’s duty of good faith in the context of an incentive plan payout. Here the employee was terminated shortly before the incentive plan payout date. Long story short version: bad move.
The Court had this to say:
This duty of reasonable exercise of discretionary contractual power is not a limitation on “the right of an employer to determine the composition of its workforce”; Bhasin at paras 53-54. It is designed to deal with both the unfair manner of termination and the consequences that flow from unduly insensitive conduct of an employer when dismissing an employee. In some situations, where the termination deprives an employee of the right to receive earned performance bonuses, grants, or awards, then the exercise of the discretion to terminate without cause becomes arbitrary or capricious when the employer creates circumstances under which the employee would be unable to receive the bonuses or other benefits and provides no reasonable or meaningful explanation for such deprivation.
The termination in this case deprived the employee of a benefit in a manner contrary to the duty of good faith contractual performance. The case also puts forward an excellent contingency analysis on damages resulting from the failure to pay out on the incentive plan.