New employees are often subject to probationary periods during which their suitability for employment is evaluated. Probationary periods are defined periods of time (which are often for three months but can be longer) that are established at the beginning of employment. One purpose of probationary periods is to give the employer a reasonable opportunity to determine if the employee is qualified and suitable for the job. They will often provide an employer the ability to terminate the employee without cause and without the normal obligations of providing notice or severance. If a probationary period is longer than three months, the normal notice and severance provisions of provincial employment standards legislation or the Canada Labour Code apply, depending on which legislation …Keep reading
In May 2015, Transport Canada sought comments from aviation stakeholders across Canada regarding a Notice of Proposed Amendment on Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones. For some time, Transport Canada has intended to implement new regulations for certain types of UAVs and their operations. These will replace the current “exemption” scheme, which was intended to be a temporary solution while Transport Canada introduced more rigorous safety requirements and created greater awareness of UAV operators’ legal obligations.
Presently, the Canadian Aviation Regulations (“CARs”) require that a UAV operator obtain a Special Flight Operations Certificate (“SFOC”) from Transport Canada. However, there are certain exemptions to these requirements, the applicability of which depends on two main factors: the weight of the …Keep reading
In November 2009, an aircraft operated by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd (“Pel-Air”) flew from Sydney, Australia to Samoa to transport a seriously ill patient and her husband to Melbourne, Australia. The plane was scheduled to land at Norfolk Island (on its way to Melbourne) to refuel. It crashed during that leg of the flight and the doctor and nurse who were onboard the aircraft (Ms. Casey and Dr. Helm) were both seriously injured. They commenced an action against Pel-Air in the Supreme Court of South Wales.
As this case involved an international flight, Ms. Casey and Dr. Helm could only recover damages according to the provisions of the Montreal Convention, an international treaty that exclusively governs such cases. Courts around …Keep reading
Last year, we posted an update about the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to hear an appeal involving Mr. Latif, a Canadian pilot of Pakistani descent. He alleged that he was a victim of discrimination when Bombardier refused him entry into a pilot training program. Our blog post (which includes a summary of the case) can be found here.
In short, Mr. Latif, who had 25 years’ experience as a pilot, applied for Bombardier’s training program in respect of a particular aircraft. Based on a prior decision of the U.S. Department of Justice (under its Alien Flight Student Program (“AFSP”)) to refuse him entry into Bombardier’s training centre in Dallas, Texas on the basis that he was a threat …Keep reading
The rise in popularity and use of unmanned aerial vehicles (“UAVs”) has attracted much attention recently. In the last year, we have seen a major uptick in UAV use by private companies. Here in Canada, UAVs have been regulated for some time through federal aviation regulations, but the accessibility of relatively inexpensive UAV technology has led Transport Canada to consider revisiting the regulations to ensure they are keeping pace with current interest and use.
In many industries, both private actors and government bodies are using UAVs in new and innovative ways. Arising from this technological leap forward are a number of new legal issues, particularly in the area of privacy. Pursuant to section 8 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and …Keep reading
The Honourable Lisa Raitt, Federal Minister of Transport, announced on April 22, 2015 that amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations (“CARs”) regarding offshore helicopter operations in Canada would come into force effective on July 21, 2015. The objectives of these amendments are to reduce the risks associated with offshore operations flights and to bring Canada’s standards in line with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards and industry best practices. The genesis of these changes arises in response to an earlier loss.
On March 12, 2009, a Sikorsky S-92A helicopter destined for the Hibernia Oilfield crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of N.L. with 16 passengers and 2 crew members on board. The lone surviving passenger suffered significant injuries while all other …Keep reading
In its Decision No. 425-C-A-2014, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) directly addressed a person’s right to bring a complaint of discrimination.
In September 2014, Gábor Lukács filed a complaint with the CTA alleging that Delta Airlines’ practices around the transportation of “large (obese)” persons were discriminatory. A preliminary issue arose as to Mr. Lukács’ “standing” (or “right”) to bring a complaint on behalf of “large” persons, defined by Delta Airlines policies, as being unable to fit in a single seat.
Mr. Lukács argued that it was not necessary for him to be a member of the discriminated class. Mr. Lukács argued that under s. 111 of the Air Transportation Regulations, the CTA had jurisdiction to hear a complaint made …Keep reading
On January 30, 2015, the Federal Government introduced Bill C-51, also known as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015. In addition to amending several existing statutes, including the Criminal Code and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the bill, assuming it is passed, will enact two new pieces of legislation, one of which is entitled the Secure Air Travel Act. The Bill received its second reading February 2015, and is currently before a House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
The Secure Air Travel Act provides for the creation of a “no fly” list, which will include the name, any known alias, date of birth, and gender of any person who the Minister of Public …Keep reading
In October 2012, we reviewed the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in Gontcharov v. Canjet, 2012 ONSC 2279. The Gontcharov decision affirmed the Ontario court’s alignment with the U.S. approach to interpreting the word “accident” in Article 17 of the Montreal Convention. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 105 S. Ct. 1338 (1985), Ontario’s Justice J. Wilson stated, at para. 47, “The term “accident” used in art. 17 of the Convention has been consistently interpreted to mean “an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger”.”
In January 2015, the U.S. District Court (S.D. Florida) released its decision in Vanderwall v. United Airlines…Keep reading
The Montreal Convention of 1999 (“MC99”) establishes liability limits for commercial aircraft operators for damages in relation to the international carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo. Article 17 provides that the carrier is liable for the death or bodily injury of a passenger involving an accident which occurs on board the aircraft or in the course of embarking or disembarking. MC99 also provides that the operator may be liable for damage or loss to baggage or cargo and for delay. Articles 21 and 22 of MC99 set out limits to the amount of this liability. These limits are expressed in Special Drawing Rights (“SDRs”), an international “currency” established by the International Monetary Fund. The value of a SDR is calculated …Keep reading