On February 20, 2017, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary John Kelly issued two Memoranda that outline how DHS plans to implement the Executive Orders on border security and interior immigration enforcement signed by President Trump on January 25, 2017. Our U.S. colleague recently authored an article that examines the potential impact of the DHS guidelines on employers with employees located in the U.S. along with recommended actions for these employers. The article may be accessed here.

While President Trump’s Executive Order temporarily banning certain foreign nationals from entry into the United States is dominating the headlines these days, employers who have employees with U.S. passports now have something else to worry about. Under a 2015 law, the State Department has the right to revoke a U.S. taxpayer’s passport for nonpayment of delinquent Federal taxes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently published guidance to provide an understanding of how the law may apply in practice. For our analysis of the IRS guidance and our recommended actions for employers, read here.

Baker McKenzie is proud to have sponsored the Washington DC premiere of the film “I am Jane Doe” on February 7, 2017. The film is a highly anticipated documentary chronicling an ongoing battle against the trafficking of minors. The Washington premiere was part the McCain Institute’s 2nd Annual Human Trafficking Symposium. Baker McKenzie’s Peter MacKay welcomed the audience followed by Cindy McCain, who provided opening remarks. There was a post-film panel discussion with U.S. Senators Heidi Heitkamp, John McCain, Claire McCaskill and Rob Portman, and the film’s director, Mary Mazzio, with broadcast journalist Perri Peltz acting as moderator. The Canadian premiere of the film is planned for Toronto in March.

For more information about the film, please follow this link.

The mass resignation of the Executive Committee of the Board of the Ontario Medical Association is not ‘abandoning ship’: the individual members are remaining on the Board of Directors because “They have a wealth of experience and knowledge that would be a significant loss to us if they were to leave the Board. The Executive Committee is making this choice in the hope that this will help unify doctors and advance the interests of the profession at this critical juncture”: “Ontario Medical Association head resigns following no-confidence vote.” The Globe and Mail, 6 February 2017. Continue Reading “Too Legit to Quit”: When a Board Executive Resigns, Sort Of

In what looked outwardly as a mercurial development, management of the union local that represents Toronto Transit workers was itself subject to discipline and it didn’t involve the proverbial requisite remedial form that unions promulgate to employers. Incestuously, this was Big Brother telling a younger — and foreign — sibling to ‘leave the sandbox’ immediately: “TTC union heads fired in power battle with U.S. union.” The Globe and Mail, 3 February 2017.  Continue Reading ‘Disturbance in the Force’: When Unions Look Inward

Prime Minister Trudeau portended the legalization of ‘pot’ in Canada in his election campaign. Pending such development, a recent decision by a court-appointed Board of Inquiry has ‘planted the seed’ for coverage of medical marijuana prescriptions under employee benefit plans: Skinner v. Board of Trustees of the Canadian Elevator Industry Welfare Trust Fund (“Skinner“). Continue Reading ‘Up in Smoke’: Benefit Coverage for Medical Marijuana

Around this time last year, we blogged about the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “ONSC”) in Jane Doe 464533 v ND (“Jane Doe“), a case that effectively created a new privacy tort – “public disclosure of embarrassing private facts” (you can read our post here). It was a tort that responded to a disturbing trend on the internet where embarrassing images or videos of people are posted without their consent. Continue Reading Privacy Tort Update – Not So Fast on Public Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Stuff

We are living in uncertain and quickly changing times.  Most recently, on January 27, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) that suspends entry into the United States for 90 days of certain aliens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.  For more information about the EO and its immigration and mobility consequences for individuals entering the U.S., read here.  For our analysis of the impact of the EO on global and U.S. multinational employers, read here.

 

“Then you should say what you mean”, the March Hare went on.

“I do,” Alice hastily replied; “at least ‒ at least I mean what I say ‒ that’s the same thing, you know.”

“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Mad Hatter.

– Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

There is no “madness” in saying what you mean; in the realm of contracts ‒ especially employment contracts ‒ the madness is in not doing so, especially if not “saying what you mean” leaves contractual intention to implication or “understanding”.

A case in point. Earlier this month, the Ontario Court of Appeal accepted the argument of my colleague Jordan Kirkness, against the contention that terms can be “implied” due ‒ in this instance ‒ to “industry custom”: Hampton Securities Limited v. Tassone, 2017 ONCA 69. Continue Reading Of Alice, Patton and Dr. Seuss: Latest on Implied Terms in Contract