Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l. is proud to represent the Canadian Artists Representation (CARFAC) and the Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec (RAAV) pro bono before the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal.

CARFAC and RAAV, which represent visual artists in Canada and Québec, have filed a complaint of bad faith bargaining against the National Gallery of Canada (NGC). The complaint was filed after the NGC refused to discuss minimum exhibition and reproduction fees for visual artists, following five years of ongoing negotiations.  CARFAC and RAAV are seeking to ensure that Canadian visual artists receive minimum fees for the exhibition and reproduction of their works by the NGC.

The Complaint was heard initially on October 26-27, 2010, and the hearing is scheduled to resume at 8:30 on December 2-3, 2010 at the Competition Tribunal hearing room.  David Yazbeck and Erin O’Hara are counsel.  Argument is expected to start Friday morning.

Federal Court upholds Human Rights Tribunal – family status includes child care needs; employer to pay special compenstion – case argued by Andrew Raven and Andrew Astritis of RCBY T-1418-10

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l. is currently representing the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”) and Cathy Murphy before the Federal Court in an application for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights complaint filed by the PSAC and Ms Murphy that alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) discriminated against individuals who had received lump-sum pay equity payments in the year 2000 and were taxed on the full amount that same year. Consequently, most individuals who received lump-sum awards paid more taxes than individuals who received their wages in the years they were earned.

Provisions in the Income Tax Act allowed individuals to spread the lump-sum award over past years but triggered the CRA to charge compound interest on the amounts that would have been paid, thus reducing the actual value of the payment ordered. The effect of CRA’s actions was to undermine full pay equity for thousands of PSAC members.

The application was heard on January 11, 2011 at the Federal Court. David Yazbeck is counsel. Justice Michel Beaudry reserved judgment.

In the Ottawa Citizen: Feds, public service union battle over pay equity back taxes

The Federal Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Kane v. Attorney General of Canada, the first case before that Court involving a decision of the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned the Tribunal’s decision, which had rejected Robert Kane’s argument that his employer had committed an abuse of authority in failing appoint him to his reclassified position.

In allowing Mr Kane’s appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the Tribunal had acted unreasonably in finding that it was irrelevant whether the position in question was a new or reclassified position, given that this distinction served as the basis for the employer’s decision to proceed by way of an advertised appointment process.  Importantly, the Federal Court of Appeal also rejected the narrow test for abuse of authority proposed by the Attorney General of Canada, ruling that this test was at odds with the ordinary meaning of the provision and the purpose of the legislation.

Mr Kane, a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”) was represented by Andrew Raven and Andrew Astritis. The full text of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision is available here.

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l. represented Bronwyn Cruden, a Canadian International Development Agency (“CIDA”) aid worker and member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”) before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Ms Cruden filed a complaint with the Tribunal in 2008 against CIDA and Health Canada after being denied a field posting in Afghanistan because she had Type 1 Diabetes. Despite her status as a “rising star” within CIDA and having successfully completed physical examinations and independent specialized medical assessments deeming her fit for posting, Health Canada refused to recommend her for medical clearance.  CIDA, which has the authority to overrule Health Canada recommendations, refused to post her to Afghanistan or to provide suitable accommodation.  Health Canada’s policy prohibits federal government employees with Type 1 diabetes from being posted to Afghanistan and other regions deemed to be “hostile”. Ms Cruden seeks to change the policy and receive compensation for lost wages and opportunities.

The hearing was held from January 17 to February 3, 2011. Bronwyn Cruden was represented by Alison Dewar and Erin O’Hara.

James Cameron will be speaking at an Ontario Bar Association program entitled Harassment Investigations: Pitfalls, Best Practices and New Approaches on Thursday, March 25, 2010.

James will be speaking from the perspective of an employee representative in harassment investigations, and will address issues including:

• How do harassment policies fit with related legislation and regulations?
• What are the procedural fairness requirements for harassment investigations?
• How should privacy/confidentiality issues be dealt with in the investigation process?
• What are the most common errors in an investigation, and what are the best practices?
• What are the viable alternatives for fixing dysfunctional workplaces without conducting a major investigation, and when are they most effective?

Visit the OBA website for more information.

The Federal Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Amos v. Attorney General of Canada, affirming the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator appointed under the Public Service Labour Relations Act to enforce a settlement agreement entered into by the parties to an adjudicable grievance.

In allowing Andrew Amos’ appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the Adjudicator’s decision was supported by the PSLRA’s increased emphasis on the voluntary resolution of disputes and Parliament’s intention that the Act provide an exclusive and comprehensive regime for resolving grievances. In doing so, the Court of Appeal agreed that case law under the previous PSSRA no longer applied, rejecting the Respondent’s argument that the grievor’s recourse was limited to presenting a new, non-adjudicable grievance to the employer.

Mr. Amos was represented by Andrew Raven and Andrew Astritis. The full text of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision is available here.