Supreme Court of Canada will not hear appeal of Roman Catholic priest's unsuccessful constructive dismissal claim
The Supreme Court of Canada announced on May 17, 2012 that the application for leave to appeal in Hart v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Kingston was dismissed without costs, meaning the top court won't hear the case.
In a decision issued on November 22, 2011 -Hart v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Kingston, in Canada, 2011 ONCA 728 - the Ontario Court of Appeal ("ONCA") had ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction over the priest's constructive dismissal claim, upholding the decision of the Ontario Superior Court.
Specifically, the ONCA stated: read more »
"Changing Employment Terms—Developments in Constructive Dismissal" is the title of a paper that Richard E. Press of Davis LLP in Vancouver, BC prepared for the Employment Law Conference held on May 2011 (Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia).
The Table of Contents is as follows:
- Constructive Dismissal-The Basics
- Responding to Repudiation of the Employment Agreement
- Condoning Changed Terms.
- Non-Legal Strategies to Have an Employee Accept Changed Terms
Ontario court refuses to certify class action based on claims of constructive dismissal and breach of ESA
In Kafka v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2011 ONSC 2305 - which was issued on April 12, 2011 - the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to certify a propsed class action that was based on allegations of:
- constructive dismissal; and
- a claim for termination pay and/or severance under the Ontario Employment Standards Act.
The claim pertained to a general announcement letter that Allstate issued on July 24, 2007, to approximately 350 to 450 active agents (employees) in Ontario, advising that effective September 1, 2009 a revised product distribution model and agent compensation system would be implemented. The new model was then phased in from September 1, 2007 through 2009.
The court summarized the issue on the certification motion (application), and its decision, as follows: read more »
Kade v. Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation  C.L.A.D. No. 101 (Mole)