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.

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.