Canadian jurisprudence: The authors posit that, despite what Professor Nadeau coins the Supreme Court’s “Pro-Arbitration Judicial Policy,” the lower courts have not consistently followed this “Policy,” preferring instead to intervene in employment-related matters that they perceive to be of importance, and have ruled that certain workplace disputes are not properly within the jurisdiction or remedial …

Canadian Jurisprudence: Recent developments in the duty to accommodate employees’ disabilities.

Canadian jurisprudence: The author presents the the legal foundation for freedom of religion in Canada, and the evolving duty to accommodate religious beliefs and practices in the workplace. Accommodating a multitude of individually held beliefs has been tempered by the courts, tribunals, and arbitrators.

Arbitrators and advocates in both the United States and Canada face similar issues, but the outcomes are often different due to differing values, customs, contracts, and statutory authority. Through a series of vignettes, the panel will illustrate differences in areas such as random drug testing, off-duty conduct, work/family conflicts, and hybrid discipline cases.