Andrew Astritis recently participated as a panellist in the Lancaster House Audio Conference entitled Lying, Cheating and Stealing: What Acts of Employment Dishonesty Warrant Automatic Discharge.

The Audio Conference dealt with a wide range of issues including a review of recent case law regarding the discipline of dishonest conduct, the penalties for theft and abuse of sick leave, and situations in which an employee can be punished for off-duty conduct. The Audio Conference also examined the approach to be applied where misconduct may be attributable to a disability.

For further information, please visit the Lancaster House website.

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck is representing Donna Mowat before the Supreme Court of Canada, challenging the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision which held that successful complainants are not entitled to compensation for legal costs under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Ms Mowat, who had substantiated a claim of sexual harassment before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, was awarded $47,000 in legal costs by the Tribunal. In quashing this decision, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal’s authority to order compensation for “expenses” incurred as a result of discrimination did not include legal expenses. Ms Mowat maintains that legal expenses fall within the definition of expenses given the broad and liberal interpretation to be accorded to human rights legislation, the broader legislative context which supports this interpretation, and the underlying purpose of the Act, which is the eradication of discrimination.

The Appeal will be heard by the Supreme Court on December 13, 2010.

Our firm recently presented arguments to the Supreme Court of Canada in a significant case involving the removal of the over $28 billion surplus that had built up in the federal Public Service, RCMP and Canadian Forces pension accounts.

Advancing arguments on behalf of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and a number of associations representing current and former members of the Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, our firm maintained that employees had an equitable right to the significant portions of the surplus that were directly attributable to contributions by workers and that this right had not been extinguished by legislation passed in 2000. This is the first case to be heard by the Supreme Court with respect to the rights workers have to a surplus in a statutory pension plan.

PSAC and the above-noted associations were represented by Andrew Raven, James Cameron and Andrew Astritis of RCBY. The Court reserved judgment on the matter.

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.