Skip to content
Skip to content

Privacy in the Workplace: Use of spyware surveillance

Workplace use of spyware surveillance in BC The issue of employees’ misusing company computers is commonplace.  In 2000, Xerox was monitoring all of its 92,000 employees’ computer usage and terminated 40 employees in the United States for accessing pornography on work time[1].  Similarly, the luxury automobile company, Rolls Royce, suspended 14 employees for inappropriate useContinue reading “Privacy in the Workplace: Use of spyware surveillance”

Is the “Our Team” section of your website creating a liability under the PIPA?

Company websites are ubiquitous.  They are a necessary form of marketing in any industry.  One of the methods of exploiting the value of this medium is to use images and videos of employees as part of the advertisement: as a friendly face on display under the “Our Team” section; or as free models and actorsContinue reading “Is the “Our Team” section of your website creating a liability under the PIPA?”

Employees or Contractors? The importance of determining employment status

How do you determine whether a worker is an employee or a contractor? As a business owner hiring or engaging workers to provide services, it is important that you determine whether the workers providing services to your business are employees or independent contractors.   Determining Employment Status: Considerations for Employers   Here are some thingsContinue reading “Employees or Contractors? The importance of determining employment status”

Use of the corporate form by an employee to bill his employer is not determinative

In Kordish v. Innotech Multimedia Corp.[1], to obtain tax advantages including the ability to deduct his expenses, Mr. Kordish formed a single shareholder corporation, Kortech Inc., and with the consent of his employer, Innotech Multimedia Corp. (the “Employer”), provided his services to the latter through this corporate vehicle. He invoiced the Employer for his servicesContinue reading “Use of the corporate form by an employee to bill his employer is not determinative”

Parting Common Law Partners in Canada – A “Common Sense” Approach to Division of Assets

In companion rulings made February 18, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law relating to property division resulting from the breakdown of a common law relationship: Kerr v Baranow; Vanasse v Séguin, 2011 SCC 10. The Court first noted that common law partners’ rights were traditionally based on the principles of resulting trustContinue reading “Parting Common Law Partners in Canada – A “Common Sense” Approach to Division of Assets”

Individual harm required for defamation case to succeed (Malhab v Diffusion Métromédia CMR)

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a recent decision favouring freedom of speech, has ruled against a claim that assumed injury to groups of people from inaccurate and hurtful comments intended to malign the group. In Malhab v Diffusion Métromédia CMR, a radio show host radio host known for his provocative remarks made accusations concerning Montréal taxi drivers whose mother tongue is Arabic orContinue reading “Individual harm required for defamation case to succeed (Malhab v Diffusion Métromédia CMR)”

© 2026 Kornfeld LLP. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy