Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Scholarship

Osgoode Law Student Wins Prize for Paper on Employment Law

by David Doorey March 30, 2011
written by David Doorey March 30, 2011

Ryan Edmonds, a student at Osgoode Hall Law School and Heenan Blaikie student (oh, and former research assistant for yours truly) has won second prize (and $1000) in the student essay writing competition at the Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies.  Congratulation to Ryan!
His paper is entitled “Taking the Risk Out of Termination: An Enterprise Risk Management Analysis of the Normative System of Employment Standards Abandoned by Honda v. Keays“.  It examines some issues that I too have considered, including how law and business risk interact to influence employer behaviour.  Here’s the abstract:

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effect of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Honda v. Keays. In particular, the paper considers the Court’s divestment from Wallace v. United Grain Growers, a case that transformed how non-unionized employees were thought of and treated in Canadian society. This paper examines that policy by discussing the analytical underpinnings of wrongful dismissal law’s previous bad faith damages regime and juxtaposes it to the new regime in Keays, concluding that the shift in focus from employer misconduct to employee loss exacerbates the employment relationship’s power imbalance and deprives employees of protection when it’s needed most. In reaching this conclusion, the paper uses the analytic frameworks of reflexive regulation and enterprise risk management to predict how employers will react to their new found advantage. The finding is that by taking the risk out of termination, there is now downward pressure to do away with the normative “upwardly ratcheting” system of employment standards that workplaces enjoyed under Wallace. The paper concludes by cautioning that subsuming all remedies related to the manner of dismissal – including tort causes of action – into the Keays/Hadley framework is a dangerous misstep that not only withholds recovery from seriously aggrieved employees, but also provides no countervailing incentive for employers to refine and improve their workplace standards.

It’s great to see a new generation of labour and employment law students doing interesting and thoughtful research.  Check out Ryan’s award-winning article at the link provided above.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Does Sears Have a Policy of Falsely Alleging Cause for Dismissal?
next post
The Annual "Sunshine List" Fuss

You may also like

Prof. Doorey’s Updated Beginners’ Guide to the Charter...

February 1, 2021

Webinar Video: The Future of Labor Law, with...

November 17, 2020

Disappointing Labour Law Reforms and What Unions Hold...

September 3, 2020

The Future of Work: Integrating Bots and Humans...

May 17, 2020

Improving protections for workers in precarious jobs: new...

April 17, 2020

Weekend Reading from Canadian Law of Work Forum

March 14, 2020

Can Transnational Labour Law Resolve the Crisis of...

March 12, 2020

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
9h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
9h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
10h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.