Publications
-
Duty of Loyalty and Non-competition: What are your Rights and Duties to Protect your Interests?
During Major Symposium in Montréal held on June 4, our colleagues Michel Desrosiers and Ariane Villemaire discussed the employees’ duty of loyalty under the Civil Code of Québec. In their presentation, they discussed the case of Xit Télécom Inc. and Madysta Constructions Ltée v. Beaumier et al.1 on (…)
-
3 things employers need to know about the modernization of the Canada Labour Code
As an employer, you may occasionally be required to impose disciplinary measures on problem employees. Handling such difficult situations requires an objective, planned approach so as to put an end to the misconduct and minimize the risk of litigation. To assist you in implementing your intervention (…)
-
Disciplinary measures: What should employers do to reduce the risk of litigation?
As an employer, you may occasionally be required to impose disciplinary measures on problem employees. Handling such difficult situations requires an objective, planned approach so as to put an end to the misconduct and minimize the risk of litigation. To assist you in implementing your intervention (…)
-
No return to work in the foreseeable future: an undue hardship for employers
Reversing a decision of the Tribunal administratif du travail (“TAT”), the Superior Court of Québec confirmed that the employer will meet the burden of demonstrating undue hardship, thus justifying a non-discriminatory administrative dismissal, where there is no evidence that the employee will be (…)
-
Dismissed after being convicted of procuring
In a decision rendered on May 29, 2017,1 arbitrator Jean-Pierre Lussier confirmed the dismissal of a cashier employed by the Société de transport de Montréal who was convicted of procuring. The facts Hired in February 2008, the employee pleaded guilty to charges of procuring in 2014. The victim (…)
-
How will the Superior Court of Québec deal with pension laws from Newfoundland and Labrador, Québec and the Parliament?
On January 30, 2017, Justice Stephen W. Hamilton issued an interlocutory decision1 in the context of a motion for directions, the outcome of which will be most interesting. On May 19, 2015, the debtors, Wabush Iron Co. Limited, Wabush Resources Inc., Wabush Mines, Arnaud Railway Company and Wabush (…)