"Trade Union Responsibility Under S.13 & 14 of the Human Rights Code" is the title of a paper written by Shanti P. Reda and Stephanie T. Mayor, lawyers at Black Gropper in Vancouver.
The authors presented the paper at the 2010 CLEBC Human Rights Conference in Vancouver on November 4, 2010.
Supreme Court of Canada clarifies when duty to mitigate requires returning to work with same employer
In Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31, 2008 SCC 20, which involved a long-serving business agent of the Teamsters Local Union No. 31, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that there is no principled reason to distinguish between wrongful dismissal and constructive dismissal situations when evaluating the employee's duty to mitigate his or her damages.
Although in some instances the relationship between the employee and the employer will be less damaged where constructive rather than wrongful dismissal has occurred, this will not always be the case. The nature of the employee/employer relationship will need to be assessed on a case by case basis when evaluating the reasonableness of the employee's mitigation efforts.
Under both scenarios, it will be necessary in some circumstances for the dismissed employee to mitigate his or her damages by returning to work for the same employer.
As further set out in the case headnote: read more »
In Canadian Staff Union v. Canadian Union of Public Employees  N.S.L.A.A. No. 15 (QL), a Nova Scotia arbitrator found that "ordinary" family obligations do not require accommodation. You can read a summary of the decision by Michael Conradi, a lawyer at Miller Thomson LLP in Toronto, here.
Arbitrator upholds 3-day suspension for local union president who copied business records without permission
North Bay Newspaper Guild v. North Bay Nugget,  O.L.A.A. No. 476 (QL) (Luborsky)