<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>EMPLOYMENT LAW BC ~ Lawyer Ib Petersen</title>
	<atom:link href="http://employmentlawbc.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://employmentlawbc.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:14:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Court Uphold $60,000 Bonus Award</title>
		<link>http://employmentlawbc.com/2012/04/court-uphold-60000-bonus-award/</link>
		<comments>http://employmentlawbc.com/2012/04/court-uphold-60000-bonus-award/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:14:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bonus - Employment Standards - Wages - Employee Status - Judicial Review - Federal or Provincial Jurisdiction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://employmentlawbc.com/?p=133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Canwood International Inc. v. Bork, 2012 BCSC 578 Date: 20120420 Docket: S096089 Registry: Vancouver In the Matter of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 And In the Matter of &#8230; <a href="http://employmentlawbc.com/2012/04/court-uphold-60000-bonus-award/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://employmentlawbc.com/2012/04/court-uphold-60000-bonus-award/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of BC Upholds Dismissal Award</title>
		<link>http://employmentlawbc.com/2012/04/supreme-court-of-bc-upholds-dismissal-award/</link>
		<comments>http://employmentlawbc.com/2012/04/supreme-court-of-bc-upholds-dismissal-award/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:12:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dismissal - Long Service Employee - Duty to Accommodate - Depression - Innocent Absenteeism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://employmentlawbc.com/?p=108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Citation: Between: And Telecommunications Workers Union v. TELUS, 2011 BCSC 1761 Telecommunications Workers Union Date: 20111230 Docket: S112553 Registry: Vancouver Petitioner IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA TELUS Advanced Communications, a Division of TELUS Communications Inc.; TELUS Services Inc. &#8230; <a href="http://employmentlawbc.com/2012/04/supreme-court-of-bc-upholds-dismissal-award/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://employmentlawbc.com/2012/04/supreme-court-of-bc-upholds-dismissal-award/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UNJUST DISMISSAL &#8211; SECTION 240 OF THE CANADA LABOUR CODE</title>
		<link>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/unjust-dismissal-section-240-of-the-canada-labour-code/</link>
		<comments>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/unjust-dismissal-section-240-of-the-canada-labour-code/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:09:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Decisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://employmentlawbc.com/?p=129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The decision found that the dismissal of a band employee for "restructuring" to constitute unjust dismissal.  There was little evidence of actual "restructuring."  The dismissed employee was entitled to "wage loss" for the brief period of unemployment. <a href="http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/unjust-dismissal-section-240-of-the-canada-labour-code/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/unjust-dismissal-section-240-of-the-canada-labour-code/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TWU V. TELUS &#8211; limits to accommodation of chronically absent employee</title>
		<link>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/twu-v-telus-limits-to-accommodation-of-chronically-absent-employee/</link>
		<comments>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/twu-v-telus-limits-to-accommodation-of-chronically-absent-employee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Decisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://employmentlawbc.com/?p=121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The decision upholds the dismissal of an employee with excessive absenteeism, suffering from episodes of major depression and chronic low-grade depression, together with a multitude of other physical and mental conditions not known to the employer.  The decision deals with limits to accommodation.   <a href="http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/twu-v-telus-limits-to-accommodation-of-chronically-absent-employee/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/twu-v-telus-limits-to-accommodation-of-chronically-absent-employee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL ON PARENTAL RIGHTS</title>
		<link>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/117/</link>
		<comments>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/117/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Human Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://employmentlawbc.com/?p=117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BC Human Rights Tribunal takes a different tack on parental rights than the Court of Appeal.  The (unrepresented) employer assumed that a banquet manager was unable to meet her employment obligations because of changed child care circumstances. <a href="http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/117/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/117/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL ON NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS</title>
		<link>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/ontario-court-of-appeal-on-negligent-infliction-of-mental-distress/</link>
		<comments>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/ontario-court-of-appeal-on-negligent-infliction-of-mental-distress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:10:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://employmentlawbc.com/?p=114</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ontario Appeals court decides that a claim negligent infliction of mental distress is not available where it is based on the employment contract.  The decision appears to contradict a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Sulz v. AG Canada. <a href="http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/ontario-court-of-appeal-on-negligent-infliction-of-mental-distress/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/ontario-court-of-appeal-on-negligent-infliction-of-mental-distress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>JUDICIAL REVIEW &#8211; SUPREME COURT OF CANADA</title>
		<link>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/judicial-review-supreme-court-of-canada/</link>
		<comments>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/judicial-review-supreme-court-of-canada/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://employmentlawbc.com/?p=111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Canada upheld an award of client-solicitor costs to a landowner in year long fight against pipeline company.  The arbitration committee's decision was only subject to review if it was unreasonable. <a href="http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/judicial-review-supreme-court-of-canada/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/judicial-review-supreme-court-of-canada/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CHILDCARE RESPONSIBILITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS</title>
		<link>http://employmentlawbc.com/2010/11/childcare-responsibilities-and-human-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://employmentlawbc.com/2010/11/childcare-responsibilities-and-human-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:46:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dismissal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://employmentlawbc.com/?p=92</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In three recent decisions the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal concluded that childcare responsibilities fell within the protected ground of “family status” (Richards v. Canadian National Railway).  While this does not mean that employers must accommodate all childcare issues, it does suggest that they should not be dismissed lightly, especially in the federal jurisdiction.   <a href="http://employmentlawbc.com/2010/11/childcare-responsibilities-and-human-rights/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://employmentlawbc.com/2010/11/childcare-responsibilities-and-human-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ABSENTEEISM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSTITUTES SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION</title>
		<link>http://employmentlawbc.com/2010/10/absenteeism-management-program-constitutes-systemic-discrimination/</link>
		<comments>http://employmentlawbc.com/2010/10/absenteeism-management-program-constitutes-systemic-discrimination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:06:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://employmentlawbc.com/blog/?p=65</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, Coast Mountain Bus Company, the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal, which concluded that the company's attendance management program resulted in systemic discrimination against employees with chronic and recurring disabilities, and that the program was not exempted as a bona fide occupational requirement.  <a href="http://employmentlawbc.com/2010/10/absenteeism-management-program-constitutes-systemic-discrimination/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://employmentlawbc.com/2010/10/absenteeism-management-program-constitutes-systemic-discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DECISION IN WU V. RBC UPHELD IN FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL</title>
		<link>http://employmentlawbc.com/2010/10/decision-in-wu-v-rbc-upheld-in-federal-court-of-appeal/</link>
		<comments>http://employmentlawbc.com/2010/10/decision-in-wu-v-rbc-upheld-in-federal-court-of-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:28:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ib</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discharge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discipline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labour Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theft]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://employmentlawbc.com/blog/?p=9</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The respondent's misconduct was serious, premeditated, deliberate and occurred over a long period of time. As he said, it was not a "momentary and emotional aberration". He noted that the respondent had a discipline free record and was a "good and dedicated employee", but a short-term employee. He added that the respondent was not singled out for any special or harsh treatment. He also found that the respondent refused to take responsibility for her actions, instead blaming the appellant for allowing her to commit the violations of the Bank Code of Conduct. Accordingly, he ruled that the penalty imposed by the employer was not excessive. <a href="http://employmentlawbc.com/2010/10/decision-in-wu-v-rbc-upheld-in-federal-court-of-appeal/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://employmentlawbc.com/2010/10/decision-in-wu-v-rbc-upheld-in-federal-court-of-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

