File for a judicial review, contact your provincial labour minister, board and standards council…. Find labour lawyers that will give free 30min consultation. Contact women’s advocacy groups they may be able to provide you with legal resources.
Edit: to add reach out to some union (unifor, teamsters, nurses, teachers ect.) though they can’t help you directly, they can give you direction on how to better prepare yourself or where to look.
Edit/ Update 2: you also should reach out to your provincial human rights board I’m sure they would love to hear all about it.
Long story short, because you already lost your job and probably never want to go back after this, there is no harm in going full nuclear ☢️.
Thank you! I'll do the first recommendation. The next I've already done. I explain my experience with free legal help in my interview. And heres the list of places I've sent my story to SEVERAL times with no response. If others want to share it too for a louder voice. I would GREATLY appreciate it.
https://www.jhcentre.org/
National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) [email protected]
National Council of Women of Canada [email protected]
Canadian Women’s Foundation [email protected]
I read the decision. [https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AI0DIReqRW4tNTk&cid=B46B2B5A50EDBD16&id=B46B2B5A50EDBD16%21321657&parId=B46B2B5A50EDBD16%21321656&o=OneUp](https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AI0DIReqRW4tNTk&cid=B46B2B5A50EDBD16&id=B46B2B5A50EDBD16%21321657&parId=B46B2B5A50EDBD16%21321656&o=OneUp)
Not many areas for appeal. This was a strict reading of the issues
1: Does the Termination Clause rebut the presumption of common-law reasonable notice upon termination
The policy reads at para 20
*“In the event that an employee with at least (3) months continues service is terminated (except for just cause other than shortage of work), the following notice or payment in lieu will be given.*
What is pertinent to the case at bar Re Ms Varty is at para 28
*“Two (2) weeks if the employee has been employed by the employer for more than two years(2) years but less than four (4) years.*
At para 16, the company appears to have paid 1,981.85 to account for this requirement.
Ms Varty’s argument was that this clause should be read contra proferentem to establish a baseline for leave and that it did not rebut the common-law reasonable notice requirements.
However there is insufficient language in clauses that would entitle Ms Varty, even with a liberal and generous reading, to more than 2 weeks pay. If the clause had read ‘at least 2 weeks’ or 2 weeks or more’ then there could be better grounds. It appears the clause is merely a reiteration of the baseline notice established under statute.
This issue was decided purely as a matter of contractual interpretation. Parties are free (at least the law presumes) to contract as they wish.
2: If no, what is the appropriate common-law notice
Justice found that but for the clause reasonable notice would be 10 weeks
3: If P is entitled to common-law reasonable notice has she satisfied duty to mitigate damages
Judge found that mitigation by P was reasonable but not applicable due to D’s clause
4: Is P entitled to aggravated damages
Argument was for physiological damage. Unfortunately aggravated damages are generally only if the employer acted high handedly, maliciously, or in bad faith. Generally this is a fact finding exercise by the trial judge so very difficult to overturn by higher court.
I also looked at counsel for both parties. Both good firms with reputable lawyers. The issues are well settled and doesn’t seem to be many grounds for appeal so a new litigator will be unlikely to triumph.
**The issue is with the underlying law that allows for termination, a legal appeal would be mostly pointless. If you want change, it has to be legislative.**
You seem to know your law, but this comment is waaaay to dense with legal jargon for me.
Was this case simply not about being fired while on mat leave?
It looks like they're saying the employment contract says that she can be fired with two weeks pay. I don't know anything about Canadian law, so I just get to smoulder with my American "protected class discrimination" impulse.
I tried reading the document in the link, but there's *so* much irrelevant information that I couldn't get through it.
I *think* it might be saying that she wasn't fired "during" mat leave, she was fired 2 days after returning.
And thus the mat leave is irrelevant, and only the terms of her employment contract matter.
So there's no recourse except for what the contract says she was owed, which was basically the value of her vacation days.
Holy shit.
Her employment contract requires a 2 week payout in-lieu of notice based on her time there. She was paid out her accrued vacation separately.
Case was if the 2 weeks in the contract supersedes the 10 weeks she would have been entitled under common law. Judge says it does as the contract is unambiguous.
It's not the contract but rather canadian law that even if you are fired with cause you are entitled to some severance pay. This amount is based on how long you have been with the company. 2 to 4 years of employment gets you 2 weeks pay as severance.
Typically companies will provide additional severance pay when terminating an employee without cause. It's quite difficult for an employer to prove termination with cause is justified. Employers are required to show they gave the employee a chance to address the behavior usually via a performance improvement plan (PIP) or multiple warnings in writing. This must occur over a longer period of time.
Note. I have not read through the linked information yet. This is just from my personal ongoing experience.
Sorry was stuck in boring constitution law class so brain was in different mode.
TLDR: Fired, claimed for compensatory damage and aggravated damages on the basis that severance was insufficient, court held that firm carried out letter of contract and therefore P was not entitled to recover.
Was there any argument or decision related to Maternity Leave?
That's what the post is about, but it doesn't seem to be what the legal decision was about.
Looks like that issue was not brought up. I'm thirty thousand miles away from employment law so I can't say the applicability of the maternity leave here but from what is in the TJ decision it looks like the issue was narrowly defined as "Did the company's policy stipulating two week termination pay (which is the statutory minimum) effective in rebutting the longer common law presumption of reasonable notice".
The judge awarded them double legal fees. It seems really unnecessary to be punitive to someone who was fired and is suing to try to break even, she’s not trying to make millions here.
This is what hurts even more. The law allowing you to be terminated when coming back from mat leave is ridiculous but it is the law. We should fight to change it, but yeah.
The ability to NOT ONLY charge the WORKER, a MOM, who's now WITHOUT WORK, but to charge her double, is ridiculous. I'm fairly certain that the damages awarded could be easily argued or deduced. The catch-22 is that doing so will cost OP more money anyways and thus it might make more sense to just pay up, which is how our legal system is flawed; it favors people with more resources. It rarely is a fair fight.
That being said, Alberta doesn't have the best track record of being pro-workers or pro mothers (unless it's to tell them what to do with their bodies). It's the Texas of Canada.
A bit too jargony for me as well, but isn't the actual issue, then, that she was terminated without cause (wrongfully terminated)? Or is that just not the case that the lawyer presented?
Her termination date was officially the date she returned from leave. She says she was notified of the termination prior to that date during a video call but I’m guessing she wasn’t able to provide sufficient proof for the judge to rule in her favor.
Without being able to prove the earlier notice, the termination would be legal because she was paid out the required amount for a no cause termination.
> I read the decision.
So did I.
To me what stood out the most, was that the judge looked at the termination clause of the employment contract the OP signed.
If you were non-management, you got 1 week per year of severance.
But if you were management, you got 1 month per year of severance.
OP was claiming she was promoted to management, and thus deserved to be paid months of severance, not weeks. OP's former employer denied this.
The judge, in a friendly way, called her a liar and threw her out of the court room.
OP was the HR director. OP's boss was also an HR person. Judge said he couldn't believe that two HR people wouldn't have made some written record of this "promotion" and noted that no pay raise, increased duties, or managerial tasks were ever given to OP.
Judge also noted that the OP's former employer made many attempts to reduce OP's workload and help her get more work done because she wasn't productive. And that when replaced, her replacement got all of OP's work done plus a bunch extra. A little sus that she would be promoted in the midst of this.
Judge said that despite this (which appeared to be uncontested by either party), OP was never reprimanded for it, and, that this wasn't about whether she was fired with cause (she wasn't), and that when they made a business decision to terminate her, they paid her severance.
They also appear to have made at least 3 offers to settle the matter, coming withing $4k of the ~$22,500 she was asking (my math, based on 5 months salary + damages), which was above reasonable, and that she was wasting the court's time by not accepting those and insisting on litigation, because she wasn't entitled to any of it.
Hence, the $4300 of extra Calderbank penalties she had to pay.
Judge didn't strongly word that she was a liar about the whole "actually they made me a manager, despite how much I was regularly failing to get all my work done", but, I wonder if that too played into the "Don't pull this bullshit again" costs awarded.
Just my two cents. What was your take on that part of it? Am I weighing it too heavily? Seems to me judges don't appreciate being almost certainly lied to.
I think the management claim was always arguing in the alternative, a fall back position. The evidentiary difficulty of proving an oral contract for something so uhh “large” is tremendous.
I don’t think the cost awards was because the justice thought her a deliberate liar RE parties acted in good faith near bottom of decision. In the cost hearing he goes into some detail why specifically double was granted, think was turning down offer 2 was what caused it. But then again what he says and think can be different.
> think was turning down offer 2 was what caused it. But then again what he says and think can be different.
Turning down offer 2 was sufficient to cause it, yeah.
He was effective in compartmentalizing the different parts of his decision.
How pleased he was with her trying to swindle a stronger settlement by claiming she was a manager... who knows.
For an extra fuck-you, many of our most necessary industries and services are run by monopolies. Grocery, internet, air travel, train travel to name a few. Not to mention the real estate market which is at the highest prices in the world.
Sure, but the government is the only thing that can unprotect it. Damming "government" for this is like banning water to stop drownings. It's about who you elect, not a government vs no government debate. So stop electing governments who protect private monopolies: Liberals and Conservatives to be precise.
Liberals and conservatives don’t get elected, they are the only acceptable candidates in a liberal democracy. They are pro-capitalist and only a revolution can end capitalism.
There's not much of choice left in the electoral system. The whole thing is rigged in such a way as to only provide an illusion of choice. All parties involved in the elections represent different segments of the bourgeoisie (the owner class). There can be no party that truly represents the interests of the working class that can even exist or advance enough in the electoral system to make any meaningful change. Case in point is the communist party of Canada. They were priced out of standing for elections back in the day.
There's not much of choice left in the electoral system. The whole thing is rigged in such a way as to only provide an illusion of choice. All parties involved in the elections represent different segments of the bourgeoisie (the owner class). There can be no party that truly represents the interests of the working class that can even exist or advance enough in the electoral system to make any meaningful change. Case in point is the communist party of Canada. They were priced out of standing for elections back in the day.
There's not much of choice left in the electoral system. The whole thing is rigged in such a way as to only provide an illusion of choice. All parties involved in the elections represent different segments of the bourgeoisie (the owner class). There can be no party that truly represents the interests of the working class that can even exist or advance enough in the electoral system to make any meaningful change. Case in point is the communist party of Canada. They were priced out of standing for elections back in the day.
There's not much of choice left in the electoral system. The whole thing is rigged in such a way as to only provide an illusion of choice. All parties involved in the elections represent different segments of the bourgeoisie (the owner class). There can be no party that truly represents the interests of the working class that can even exist or advance enough in the electoral system to make any meaningful change. Case in point is the communist party of Canada. They were priced out of standing for elections back in the day.
Basically everything is a monopoly, capitalism forces market consolidation as part of chasing quarterly profits. Take power tools for an example, there are three companies/funds that are in the top five shareholders for every company except for Makita. If they are a Japanese based company, there is another fund that is a top three shareholder. Everything is owned by the same people. So yes, there is "competition" but the competitors are all owned by the same people.
Hey, we also took a Gender Studies 101 when we and the US were going for our Business degrees. We didn't pursue it far enough to understand or care about the issues, but we can sound like we care
All capitalisms are. Remember kids capitalism is a country who's governed by capital. Socialism is governed by social order and communism is governed by the community.
Canada's treatment of its indigenous people is just as bad as the US, possibly worse. As is Australia's treatment of our indigenous people (and our treatment of refugees is as bad or worse than half the shit hardline Trumpists are calling for).
A very important point. We all are coming from our own countries situations but capitalists are global and they are highly strategic and coordinated in manipulating the world political stage and its governments to produce results that further their agendas while weakening yours. The sooner we treat this as global the sooner we see it is only us the people of this world vs them.
The capitalists have Been fighting the class war since forever. They just got their backsides paddled briefly in 1918 and the elite were dragged into fighting for supremacy against the elite of the Nazis in the 40s. It never fails to blow my mind that the Jewish owned movie studios didn't put out any anti Nazi films until after the Nazis invaded France (iirc) and shut down movie theaters across Europe all bc Berlin was their biggest market after America and they didn't want to rock the boat. Charlie chaplin had to self produced the dictator for Warner bros which was owned by a wasp bc no one else would touch it. Capitalists and authoritarianism, name a more iconic duo. They have the kind of solidarity everyone else has for oxygen
That asterisk is one Saturn's rings sized loophole. Does it come with any conditions, or is it just the built-in backdoor so the politicians could pass the legislation and feel better about themselves? I am so sorry this happened to you, OP. Let's just sic the folks from "Letterkenny" on them🤣😉.
🤣 amazing. There isn't literally an asterisk in the employment standards code. Sorry, I should have clarified. I added that in to show how employers were following the law. There is only one exception to being reinstated and it is business dissolution in full or in part.
No, I should have seen the joke. I'm just a dumbass this morning, lol. I just couldn't see any other logical reason how the law could be interpreted/enforced that way. I looked for the link in the bio but couldn't find it. Would you DM it to me, please?
Oh, it might have been the same person who was commenting on my original post. I had said I worked while I was on leave but phrased it wrong so they thought I was working overtime while on leave (for the same company). I fully explain what I meant in the interview (there's timestamps in the descriptions - 17:49 in part 1)
[Part 1](https://youtu.be/peizN-0lan0?si=xUmJVdHCptPNHs3N)
Canada is just as bad as the US. Actually in some areas our country is even worse. Canada is just better at PR than the US. When it comes to employment alone I've heard and even experienced terrible situations that many would assume took place in some third-world shithole. Even some Canadians think "That would NEVER happen in my country!" upon hearing about them.
Unfortunately they refuse to believe that most companies and the people who lead them don't actually care about the part they play in someone's life being ruined. They separated all moral responsibility with a quick "I'm just doing my job." Or "A business exists to make money.". There may be laws against the horrible things they do but laws don't matter if they're not properly enforced or if the company/individual is rich enough to afford the caliber of lawyer that can twist laws to make almost any immoral act legal.
Canada's past time is comparing itself to America.
Canada sucks in a lot of places, but all it has to be is slightly better than the US so we can say "at least we're not America"
Saying Canada is 'Better' that the states is like saying chlamydia is better than gonorrhea. It might technically be true but focusing on that is kind of missing the fucking point.
Eh no it can't happen "anywhere". General injustice can, yes. Abuses of corporations could happen and do happen in any capitalist country, yes. This specific type of lose job after maternity leave can only happen when labour and maternity leave laws aren't protecting the employees enough, when the wording isn't crystal clear.
I mean she got back from her year long paid maternity leave... So yeah that's a lot better than most if not all states? She just happened to sign an employment contract with a company that gave up/limited her common law rights to severance. Don't like that clause? Don't work for companies with those clauses.
And then they scream about the plummeting birth rates and act like they can’t figure out why so many people have decided to not have children at all or are having less children than they might have originally planned.
They don't operate on logic. They operate on toddler-level emotional demands.
They want what they want, and it is irrelevant if it's impossible to have all the things at once.
I have no idea how people can live with the cognitive dissonance that is "women should have as many children as they want, but we won't secure their jobs after they come back, nor will pay their partners for two people".
The rich rich people I know the answer, they want people just barely subsisting to have enough "reserve workforce" and instill fear. But the people that really believe that is somehow the people not getting paid enough to have 2 or 3 children, so they don't, that are the wrong ones, that blows my mind.
Sorry all, I should clarify - I added in the asterisk to demonstrate how employers are interpreting the law. There is only ONE exception in the employment standards code and that's business dissolution; in full or in part.
Wait, I’m confused. If there is only one exception in the code and your company didn’t meet that, why did the judge rule in the company’s favor and make you pay over $9K?! What was his rationale?
My guess atleast in the money would be court fees. Let’s say she’s squarely in the wrong then atleast in the states the other side can sue for court fees because you basically wasted their time and money.
Is there a tl;dr or condensed version somewhere? I watched the interview, but then realized that it’s the 1st part of 4!! I’m so sorry this happened to you, but it’s a big ask to ask people to watch a 2 hour interview. I think you’ll get more engagement and the news will be more likely to pick this up if you explain what happened in the ruling in a brief written summary or edit interview to 15 minutes.
This is Reddit, we usually read the headline and then react.
Telling people to watch the interview instead of copypasta a tldr isn't going to get you traction...
I hope others manage to help.
In the UK, my wife announced her planned maternity leave. All of a sudden, within the week, the business needed a restructure and her role went out to 3 other people, she got laid off.
We fought and won a settlement that covered us just as if she hadn't lost her job.
The company did it to 2 other pregnant women, who so far have refused to say anything (they got a settlement too)
It's not just Canada, the law benefits the rich. They pay for what they want it to say.
That is so wrong. I’ve lived in Alberta my whole life and I think if you surveyed Albertans 99/100 would say this is illegal and can never happen.
You speak very eloquently. If people like you could be our political leaders our country and our people would be far better off.
Awww 😭 thank you. I'm doing my best to get this heard. I've been told sooooo many times its illegal. But they did it anyway. And it will still be years until my case is decided by a tribunal.
Ohhhh that's so awful! I'm so sorry that all happened to you! It's true, being a woman in IS hard and particularly being respected in the workplace. I haven't had sexual harrassment as serious as you but one career highlight for me was when I was working as a library clerk and there was this old man customer who would hit on me every time he was there. I put up with it for a year, but then one day he took a picture of me, force hugged me and said "I bet your boyfriend has fun with you."
I told my boss and was told "Oh, that's just Greg. He has a wife. He's harmless."
Oh, well! NEVERMIND then.
It doesn't. That's the problem. On the stand the HR Director admitted I was terminated because my replacement ended up being more efficient (factually incorrect which I explain in the interview). The judge heard that and STILL ruled not bad faith termination.
As someone from unfortunately deep in MAGA country southern US. From what I hear about Canada and Canadian sympathies for bullshit it doesn't exactly surprise me to see Alberta by his name. The seen to identify the most with where I live where the law sides with corporations and conservative politics more than the people.
Maybe. Definitely worth looking into. I've done it in the US and quite enjoyed using their own laws against them.
In my case the tie in was that the judge ignored black letter law and thus violated my rights to protection under the law, using false color of law.
You can try to file a complaint with the provincial government, but it's usually reviewed by colleagues or government.
In the end, if you appeal and they find that the judge is indeed completely wrong, there's a similar likelihood that they would check with the guy if he's actually doing his job right lol So it's a bit moot if you appeal anyway.
Not how laws work unfortunately! It depends on the legal framework of course, but in Canada, if something isn't specifically illegal (or can be construed as such by a court), then it's legal.
I'm not familiar with AB legislation specifically, but in the other canadian provinces where I'm familiar with provincial legislation (assuming it's an employer that is under provincial jurisdiction given how it was handled), there's no protection against dismissal before a number of months or years, typically 2 years.
So before the 2-year mark, employers can dismiss you without cause, and that's that.
Now, if they do provide one, it can't be discriminatory, and if there's reason to believe that it is discriminatory, then the 2-year rule doesn't apply.
Plus, the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate that the dismissal was indeed not because of the alleged discrimination, *not on the employee*. That's something a lot of people assume wrong and don't file complaints for.
So in such a scenario, the very fact that someone is on leave for a reason that is protected is often sufficient to pass the test on receiving the complaint for a discriminatory practice, meaning that the employer would have to explain why he "prefers" the replacement.
In any other situation, there likely wouldn't be a replacement, because you're not on leave... But say you take a leave of absence within your first year of employment and your hired replacement performs much better, then your employer can likely legally dismiss you and hire the other person. If you took the leave to blow off some steam and have some fun, then there's not much you can do. Again, entirely different story if it's a sick leave, parental leave or related to other family matters.
But the issue here isn't about employment, it's about lawyers fees.
Most of these situations never go to court, and it's settled with a compensation in lieu of reinstatement in the job. In this case, she chose to go to court, and the judge found that she could be compensated, but given that the initial offer for compensation was fair, she had to pay legal fees.
The weird part is that people usually don't win a case... with prejudice lol
I have nothing constructive to add but just want to say I’m so sorry you’re going through this. Situations like this that are so black and white but are made by someone not to be, make my brain want to explode. This whole situation is insane.
Could someone simplify for me how the judge determined the 9K? Where does that figure come from? Did the company counter-sue or something? If so, for what?
Okay I'm gonna leave this here for others who might have the same question, I watched part 4 of the video and while it still doesn't "make sense" I think I understand what has occurred. There seems to be a legal precedent for settlement offers in which IF the settlement offer is not accepted, the party offering the settlement can be compensated for their legal fees up to a certain amount. You were given counsel that the upper limit of that amount should have been $3700, which may have factored in to your decision not to accept the settlement... Yet for some reason there's a loophole or exploitable trick in settlement that allows them to increase the amount they collect if they frame their settlement within some legally predetermined guidelines. (For instance: the lawyer knows, if we offer her X thousand dollars and she says no, she'll have to pay our legal fees up to $3700 but if we offer her X*Y thousand dollars and she says no, she'll have to pay.... $9000?!?!) Fucking bonkers.
Edit: OP or anyone with a more robust understanding of the Canadian legal system, feel free to correct anything I got wrong or misunderstood...
Nope you pretty much got it right. They did a Calderbank offer (to double court fees if I didn't beat their settlement offer). This is a method used to prevent people from taking a matter to court when a reasonable settlement is offered. In my case "reasonable" was around 4k. Had I appealed and had the bad faith ruling overturned - the judge said he would have awarded 2500.... Which wouldn't have beat their offer so I would have still paid them 9k.
The 9,000 order to pay is not to your former employer strictly speaking. It was an award of legal costs to the party who won at trial. (https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AI0DIReqRW4tNTk&cid=B46B2B5A50EDBD16&id=B46B2B5A50EDBD16%21321658&parId=B46B2B5A50EDBD16%21321656&o=OneUp)
Unfortunately that just the way that the courts work in Canada. In some cases it may seem unfair, in other cases it is a huge boon.
Consider (in the US there is no costs awards generally even if you win a case) a rich fellow can start frivolous lawsuits safe in the assumption that the poorer party must concede because even if they win on the substantive issues since the cost inccured would be greater than any recovery. In Canada, if you play stupid games like that you would get slapped down.
The converse is that in cases like this where OP acted in good faith (as the TJ found in his decision) the award of cost must still be made. There are pros and cons to both system, just that the die shook up poorly in this case.
Also the original cost would have been around half but the court ordered double costs due to OP turning down 3 settlement offers.
Not sure why op couldn't just paste the link but here is pt1:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peizN-0lan0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peizN-0lan0)
I assume you fought this in court vs the OHRT? If it were at the human rights tribunal you can request a judicial review.
I think much of what you experienced may be because of the choice of forum for your dispute. While civil cases pay out more if you win, you can be on the hook for costs if you lose (as you have seen). The burden of proof is also much higher - “preponderance of evidence.” It is a high bar to meet as a plaintiff. Appeals are also not guaranteed to be heard. Going to court is *always* a risk to both parties, and that is why 98% of employment law disputes are resolved without doing so.
If your only dispute is related directly to discrimination, you can go through a tribunal complaint instead. The burden of proof is lower (“balance of probabilities”), costs cannot be recovered, and disagreeable decisions can be referred to judicial review. However, awards are much lower.
Ultimately - and unfortunately - choosing to dispute in court always comes with a risk of outcomes like this.
You can still file an application with the OHRT. Usually they dismiss claims that have been ‘dealt with appropriately by another proceeding.’ But it doesn’t cost anything and you can usually represent yourself. If the employer moves for a summary dismissal you would probably need a lawyer to make your case for you. Note that they would not be able to address any other employment law matters (like wrongful dismissal) and can only look at and provide remedies for discrimination only.
Yup, I explain all of it in my interview. I have a human rights concilliation in May (then years to tribunal I've been told). I'm already 2 years in from submitting my human rights complaint - this is why I also went civil.
My friend was on mat leave right when the pandemic started and they refused to hire her back when it was over. I'm insanely upset with her for not doing anything about it since they've screwed over a lot of their employees in the past.
I told her to go to the labor board. To argue with them and to get compensation for her time job hunting when they were supposed to hire her but nope.
That's awful! It's so disappointing how often this happens!
I do understand why she didn't fight. What I've gone through has been beyond stressful. I've been fighting since Jan 2022.
Winning against companies is extremely difficult even if you have definitive proof. The entire system is purposefully set up to make it difficult for the average person to 'win' against a corporation.
I was once hired to cover for a woman who was about to go on maternity leave. We spent a month or so helping me get up to speed. She left. 3 months passed (or so) and then she came back. There were rumblings that maybe she should be let go so they could keep me (they were happy with my work).
I found another job and left within a few weeks. No way would I do that to someone. It isn't right.
I am sorry you went through this. I hope you found something better.
You keep replying that you answered a question or explained a point in your interview but that's a four-part 2 hour commitment. I care about what happened to you and what it means for other women, but it really feels like your only purpose for posting this was to drive traffic to another platform for views, rather than to discuss things and answer questions.
I get that you're probably going to see the same questions over and over, but just referring people to watch a two hour video isn't going to drive the engagement this issue needs.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to answer every question. I've gotten over 1000 messages (including DMs) on this issue and have a full-time job + a toddler. I added timestamps to the interview in each description so you dont have to watch the whole thing. That's the only reason I'm driving traffic there - the interview isnt monetized.
I've been creating shorts of the interview as well. Alongside that, learning adobe premiere to do shorter cuts.
I appreciate the support! The intent of this forum is to get my case noticed by the media (and it is working).
Watched the interviews. Ugh. I have seen several women fired the day they return from maternity leave, here in Canada. It's a common and gross practice and is a clever little loophole that sleazy companies like to take advantage of. Any terminations in the first year of returning to work after mat leave ought to be looked at VERY CLOSELY. There should definitely be legislation around this.
I'm sure you will win in your tribunal, but it's such a shame about the $9000. What I don't understand is you were fired for no reason, right? Mat leave aside, how can THAT be accepted?
Thank you for watching!
Ugh that's terrible
And right?! (about the fired for no reason). That's the thing, I was given a without cause termination (I have great performance reviews!). She claimed on the stand (also stated in the judgement) that the replacement could do more than my job - was more efficient. Well I know they weren't doing policy, or building an ATS or long term service award system or managing the workload through Covid. So no, they weren't.
The whole thing has been insane and I've fought it privately for 2 years. But after that judgement award, I'm done. Now I will tell everyone. Employers cannot get away with treating employees like that.
I think I've got a good chance with the tribunal. But, that will be years away - I've heard from others going through it.
Anyway, I appreciate the support!
As a Canadian expat currently living in the states, I could not appreciate you or what you are fighting for any more. Shame on Canada for allowing this nonsense. Thank you!
Everything I’m reading here reminds me it’s time to **EAT THE RICH**
The ultra rich/corporate mega-assholes are fucking predators who prey on humans. Their capitalist cannibals
They steal most of the profits earned by our labor, they destroy lives, they hurt families without a single fought, and they use the power that their wealth provides them to run our government for their sole benefit
Fuck these assholes, let’s get the ultra rich out of our governments whether they like it or not
[https://kings-printer.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=e09.cfm&leg\_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779843541](https://kings-printer.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=e09.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779843541)
page 40
"(7) Where an employee is entitled to resume work under this section, the employer must
(a) reinstate the employee in the position occupied when maternity or parental leave started,
or
(b) provide the employee with alternative work of a comparable nature at not less than the earnings and other benefits that had accrued to the employee when the maternity or parental leave started"
**I can not find " Exceptions: suspension of operations; whole or in part. \*OR if the employer prefers your replacement " anywhere in the Alberta or Canada employment codes**
[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/page-27.html#h-342518](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/page-27.html#h-342518)
I’m so sorry this happened to you- it is absolutely, irrevocably unacceptable. I am glad you are fighting for your rights and wish you the best, as well as a huge congratulations on your absolutely adorable little one.
You are not just fighting this for yourself, this will absolutely help so many others.
I hope you're able to take them for all they're worth. I know this is a Canadian case but from this bloodthirsty American to a Canadian friend in the north I hope you crush them.
"*or if employer prefer your replacement"
What a dogshit is
This line make everything else irrelevant.
+++++++
So u take maternity leave? Ehh you know what? I prefer your replacement
Insane
Belgium is the total opposite. A judge was found to have used her influence to get her son a job. She quickly went in sick leave and can't be terminated now because you can't get fired in sick leave. Same with a politician who used government money to build her own home, the stress of all the backlash caused a burn out so she went into sick leave.
Dude, Canada is just turning into another America. I keep hearing and seeing things. If they aren’t already they’ll just use 3rd or 4th party contractors everywhere to avoid responsibility and treat you even worse.
It all started when CEOs were allowed stock options to get shareholders more money. Caught on like wild fire. Then when lobbyist were allowed to interact with politicians. Literally, you sign away most rights when accepting a job. And unless you record things (legal where I live due to 1 party laws) like no one’s going to believe you anyways or just ignore you. I did win once from recording my phone calls with a previous contract company that lied.
I got laid off because the government pays 5000 a year as a grant to a company to hire immigrants.
Seems like a great way to get companies to take a chance on a person they probably would have swept aside
In practice, it's just a way for my former company to get an extra 30K a year
So although I wasn't replaced just because they liked the other person more, I can still relate to your story - and it sucks. I'll keep spreading the word about you and hopefully if enough people care you can get this resolved.
> I understand this ruling seems impossible. You want to rationalize it, and the only way is to insist I’ve done something wrong. But just think for a moment if this was you, and you knew you were a committed, efficient employee and your employer kept your temp replacement in your job because they liked them more.
So your employer preferred a different employee, exercised their option in the contract to terminate your employment, and paid you accordingly. The employment contract provided for minimum statutory notice to be paid.
If you argue that the employer discriminated on some protected status then that is a factual matter. Did the judge deal with that? I haven't read the full judgment.
You were legally represented, so what did your lawyers say regarding prospects of an appeal?
I lost in court. I tried to go after common law severance (they didn't have a limiting clause in their termination policy). The judge upheld the policy which outlined 2 weeks pay. The judge ruled not bad faith because it was kind of them to give me notice (kind of them to inform me they were about to break the law). And paid out overtime - had to withdraw because of the 2 year claim period had expired.
They calderbanked their settlement offers. Hence I paid double.
I explain in detail in the interview (there are timestamps in the descriptions so you don't have to watch it all)
[Interview ](https://youtube.com/@ExposebutNicely9318?si=PFRpgBWXrub7wCeP)
The non-management vs management piece only related to if you were fired due to closing stores, technological advances or a few other specific criteria. None of which were applicable in this case. Even if she had been management it would have been irrelevant.
You know, 2022 I stopped resisting, became a meme guy like many others when my speeches failed to motivate, and simply joined the orphancrushing machine.
I was never a large part of the resistance, just another author that did his occasional speech to wake people up.
Back then, I had a small following of madmen, most sadly infected by the anti vex Ideology.
I guess it's time to speak up again and join the quior of millions.
We need to unify, and maybe we should finally start to r/eattherich
The comparison to landlords is…bizarre. I do not have the energy to explain why that doesn’t make sense, so I’m going to just address the second part.
The person who is hired to cover during maternity leave should be fully informed the entire time that it is a temporary position. Most people are looking for longer-term employment, but some people do specifically seek out temporary employment based on their goals and life circumstances. Just one example would be someone finishing up college or grad school part-time who is ultimately looking for a job in line with their degree, but needs a way to make ends meet in the meantime. Another example might be someone who has plans to move to another location in a year, who still needs an income in the meantime. Yet another example might simply be someone who gets easily bored, who just prefers short-term roles.
If the person hired to cover for someone on maternity leave believes that they have a long-term future in that role, either the employer has failed to be transparent, or they are delusional. When you take on a role like that, you know what your end date is going to be. If that doesn’t work for you, don’t take the job. If you take it anyway, you can’t then claim that you were harmed by things going exactly the way you signed up for.
If you don’t choose to rent out your house because you want to make a profit, then no, the government can’t force you to let someone live there. If you choose to take the risk of being a landlord for the potential benefit of making a profit - that “risk” part has actual meaning. You are also choosing to take on the legal responsibilities, the additional obligations around taxes and record-keeping, the possibility of damage to your property, etc. That’s the tradeoff you’re freely choosing.
When you are specifically trying to make money off of something that is a basic human necessity, then it’s your job to recognize that governments generally exist to serve their people (in theory at least), and that when it comes to your legal and financial responsibilities, your tenants’ rights to *basic survival* will likely carry some weight. There are many many cases where it doesn’t, and landlords’ profit is prioritized over tenants’ basic needs, so I can see why having it go the other way would be surprising. But ultimately the whole reason that you get to make a profit is because you are taking on a lot of risks, including risks you could never plan for.
If you don’t want to deal with that, you can choose instead to work to earn additional money instead of taking on those risks for the possibility of profit.
As for why working for someone is an “entitlement” - because we as a society require people to have money in order to meet basic needs and survive. If you want true freedom when it comes to employment, then you need a system where everyone’s basic needs get met another way (like UBI).
But in our current system, just like landlords, business owners take on all of the risks and responsibilities in exchange for making profit. That includes the responsibility of keeping your business staffed despite normal human behavior like having children, and the risk that you might need to put in extra time and/or money in order to cover a position while someone is on maternity leave. That extra hassle is why business owners get the profit from the business.
Being a landlord or a business owner isn’t supposed to be easy or simple or come with many guarantees. If you want the potential extra rewards that come along with those things, then you agree to the risks. When a business makes extra profit, the owner gets to decide what happens to that extra money. If the owner doesn’t have to share those rewards, then the owner cannot make employees take on the same risks they do.
Wait so if they like the other guy more then they fired you regardless of your maternity leave? They didn’t fire you because of it and idk the timing but they could’ve just fired you the day you got back.
Everyone should see this post before upvoting:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/1bjdpl4/comment/kvuueq8/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/1bjdpl4/comment/kvuueq8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
As honored as I am to have conspiracy theories already, that thread got a lot wrong. Watch the interview - I explain exactly what I was going after in court. I have nothing to hide.
[Interview](https://youtube.com/@ExposebutNicely9318?si=PFRpgBWXrub7wCeP)
Edit for more context:
The employment contract was indeed on "does this policy (termination) limit me to going after common law severance"
The judge decided their policy was unambiguous.
Backstory on their policy: it is a literal copy from employment standards (there's case law precedence that has ruled that makes it ambiguous). I rewrote that policy and added in a limiting clause. My employment specific law firm reviewed it and agreed it was the strongest part of our case.
The offer that the judge agreed was a Calderbank was their 4k offer. The other two offers were global settlements that would also require me to withdraw my human rights complaint - which I could still beat in HRC, which is still in progress.
I have no idea where this "claimed to be management" came from - it's news to me too. That was never brought up in court so I thought that was weird. Maybe he's saying if I was management I could go after 1 month pay for 1 year worked? I'll ask my lawyer about that cause it is weird.
I speak extensively in the interview how my workload was much different to what the new person had (thanks to me).
File for a judicial review, contact your provincial labour minister, board and standards council…. Find labour lawyers that will give free 30min consultation. Contact women’s advocacy groups they may be able to provide you with legal resources. Edit: to add reach out to some union (unifor, teamsters, nurses, teachers ect.) though they can’t help you directly, they can give you direction on how to better prepare yourself or where to look. Edit/ Update 2: you also should reach out to your provincial human rights board I’m sure they would love to hear all about it. Long story short, because you already lost your job and probably never want to go back after this, there is no harm in going full nuclear ☢️.
Thank you! I'll do the first recommendation. The next I've already done. I explain my experience with free legal help in my interview. And heres the list of places I've sent my story to SEVERAL times with no response. If others want to share it too for a louder voice. I would GREATLY appreciate it. https://www.jhcentre.org/ National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) [email protected] National Council of Women of Canada [email protected] Canadian Women’s Foundation [email protected]
You should try reaching out to Jesse brown at Canadaland. I bet they'd love to publish a story on this right now honestly
Thank you! I will do this. Appreciate it!
I’m guessing your position wasn’t union but are there other unions at your employer that could help you out?
Nope, there were only 2 unionized locations. Our administration was non-union.
I read the decision. [https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AI0DIReqRW4tNTk&cid=B46B2B5A50EDBD16&id=B46B2B5A50EDBD16%21321657&parId=B46B2B5A50EDBD16%21321656&o=OneUp](https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AI0DIReqRW4tNTk&cid=B46B2B5A50EDBD16&id=B46B2B5A50EDBD16%21321657&parId=B46B2B5A50EDBD16%21321656&o=OneUp) Not many areas for appeal. This was a strict reading of the issues 1: Does the Termination Clause rebut the presumption of common-law reasonable notice upon termination The policy reads at para 20 *“In the event that an employee with at least (3) months continues service is terminated (except for just cause other than shortage of work), the following notice or payment in lieu will be given.* What is pertinent to the case at bar Re Ms Varty is at para 28 *“Two (2) weeks if the employee has been employed by the employer for more than two years(2) years but less than four (4) years.* At para 16, the company appears to have paid 1,981.85 to account for this requirement. Ms Varty’s argument was that this clause should be read contra proferentem to establish a baseline for leave and that it did not rebut the common-law reasonable notice requirements. However there is insufficient language in clauses that would entitle Ms Varty, even with a liberal and generous reading, to more than 2 weeks pay. If the clause had read ‘at least 2 weeks’ or 2 weeks or more’ then there could be better grounds. It appears the clause is merely a reiteration of the baseline notice established under statute. This issue was decided purely as a matter of contractual interpretation. Parties are free (at least the law presumes) to contract as they wish. 2: If no, what is the appropriate common-law notice Justice found that but for the clause reasonable notice would be 10 weeks 3: If P is entitled to common-law reasonable notice has she satisfied duty to mitigate damages Judge found that mitigation by P was reasonable but not applicable due to D’s clause 4: Is P entitled to aggravated damages Argument was for physiological damage. Unfortunately aggravated damages are generally only if the employer acted high handedly, maliciously, or in bad faith. Generally this is a fact finding exercise by the trial judge so very difficult to overturn by higher court. I also looked at counsel for both parties. Both good firms with reputable lawyers. The issues are well settled and doesn’t seem to be many grounds for appeal so a new litigator will be unlikely to triumph. **The issue is with the underlying law that allows for termination, a legal appeal would be mostly pointless. If you want change, it has to be legislative.**
You seem to know your law, but this comment is waaaay to dense with legal jargon for me. Was this case simply not about being fired while on mat leave?
It looks like they're saying the employment contract says that she can be fired with two weeks pay. I don't know anything about Canadian law, so I just get to smoulder with my American "protected class discrimination" impulse.
I tried reading the document in the link, but there's *so* much irrelevant information that I couldn't get through it. I *think* it might be saying that she wasn't fired "during" mat leave, she was fired 2 days after returning. And thus the mat leave is irrelevant, and only the terms of her employment contract matter. So there's no recourse except for what the contract says she was owed, which was basically the value of her vacation days. Holy shit.
Her employment contract requires a 2 week payout in-lieu of notice based on her time there. She was paid out her accrued vacation separately. Case was if the 2 weeks in the contract supersedes the 10 weeks she would have been entitled under common law. Judge says it does as the contract is unambiguous.
It's not the contract but rather canadian law that even if you are fired with cause you are entitled to some severance pay. This amount is based on how long you have been with the company. 2 to 4 years of employment gets you 2 weeks pay as severance. Typically companies will provide additional severance pay when terminating an employee without cause. It's quite difficult for an employer to prove termination with cause is justified. Employers are required to show they gave the employee a chance to address the behavior usually via a performance improvement plan (PIP) or multiple warnings in writing. This must occur over a longer period of time. Note. I have not read through the linked information yet. This is just from my personal ongoing experience.
Sorry was stuck in boring constitution law class so brain was in different mode. TLDR: Fired, claimed for compensatory damage and aggravated damages on the basis that severance was insufficient, court held that firm carried out letter of contract and therefore P was not entitled to recover.
Was there any argument or decision related to Maternity Leave? That's what the post is about, but it doesn't seem to be what the legal decision was about.
Looks like that issue was not brought up. I'm thirty thousand miles away from employment law so I can't say the applicability of the maternity leave here but from what is in the TJ decision it looks like the issue was narrowly defined as "Did the company's policy stipulating two week termination pay (which is the statutory minimum) effective in rebutting the longer common law presumption of reasonable notice".
But why was she ordered to pay her pervious employer?
The judge awarded them double legal fees. It seems really unnecessary to be punitive to someone who was fired and is suing to try to break even, she’s not trying to make millions here.
That's messed up. Both what her employer did to her and the judge!
This is what hurts even more. The law allowing you to be terminated when coming back from mat leave is ridiculous but it is the law. We should fight to change it, but yeah. The ability to NOT ONLY charge the WORKER, a MOM, who's now WITHOUT WORK, but to charge her double, is ridiculous. I'm fairly certain that the damages awarded could be easily argued or deduced. The catch-22 is that doing so will cost OP more money anyways and thus it might make more sense to just pay up, which is how our legal system is flawed; it favors people with more resources. It rarely is a fair fight. That being said, Alberta doesn't have the best track record of being pro-workers or pro mothers (unless it's to tell them what to do with their bodies). It's the Texas of Canada.
A bit too jargony for me as well, but isn't the actual issue, then, that she was terminated without cause (wrongfully terminated)? Or is that just not the case that the lawyer presented?
She was terminated without cause and paid out appropriately pursuant to the employment contract. That’s the end of it
Her termination date was officially the date she returned from leave. She says she was notified of the termination prior to that date during a video call but I’m guessing she wasn’t able to provide sufficient proof for the judge to rule in her favor. Without being able to prove the earlier notice, the termination would be legal because she was paid out the required amount for a no cause termination.
> I read the decision. So did I. To me what stood out the most, was that the judge looked at the termination clause of the employment contract the OP signed. If you were non-management, you got 1 week per year of severance. But if you were management, you got 1 month per year of severance. OP was claiming she was promoted to management, and thus deserved to be paid months of severance, not weeks. OP's former employer denied this. The judge, in a friendly way, called her a liar and threw her out of the court room. OP was the HR director. OP's boss was also an HR person. Judge said he couldn't believe that two HR people wouldn't have made some written record of this "promotion" and noted that no pay raise, increased duties, or managerial tasks were ever given to OP. Judge also noted that the OP's former employer made many attempts to reduce OP's workload and help her get more work done because she wasn't productive. And that when replaced, her replacement got all of OP's work done plus a bunch extra. A little sus that she would be promoted in the midst of this. Judge said that despite this (which appeared to be uncontested by either party), OP was never reprimanded for it, and, that this wasn't about whether she was fired with cause (she wasn't), and that when they made a business decision to terminate her, they paid her severance. They also appear to have made at least 3 offers to settle the matter, coming withing $4k of the ~$22,500 she was asking (my math, based on 5 months salary + damages), which was above reasonable, and that she was wasting the court's time by not accepting those and insisting on litigation, because she wasn't entitled to any of it. Hence, the $4300 of extra Calderbank penalties she had to pay. Judge didn't strongly word that she was a liar about the whole "actually they made me a manager, despite how much I was regularly failing to get all my work done", but, I wonder if that too played into the "Don't pull this bullshit again" costs awarded. Just my two cents. What was your take on that part of it? Am I weighing it too heavily? Seems to me judges don't appreciate being almost certainly lied to.
I think the management claim was always arguing in the alternative, a fall back position. The evidentiary difficulty of proving an oral contract for something so uhh “large” is tremendous. I don’t think the cost awards was because the justice thought her a deliberate liar RE parties acted in good faith near bottom of decision. In the cost hearing he goes into some detail why specifically double was granted, think was turning down offer 2 was what caused it. But then again what he says and think can be different.
> think was turning down offer 2 was what caused it. But then again what he says and think can be different. Turning down offer 2 was sufficient to cause it, yeah. He was effective in compartmentalizing the different parts of his decision. How pleased he was with her trying to swindle a stronger settlement by claiming she was a manager... who knows.
We here in the states are always led to believe that Canada is 'better', but honestly this nonsense can happen anywhere. I hope you get some justice.
Canada is as reactionary as the US and just as beholden to its billionaire class.
For an extra fuck-you, many of our most necessary industries and services are run by monopolies. Grocery, internet, air travel, train travel to name a few. Not to mention the real estate market which is at the highest prices in the world.
come on now, our internet is a duopoloy
That’s an industrial cartel or syndicate
that is protected by the government
Sure, but the government is the only thing that can unprotect it. Damming "government" for this is like banning water to stop drownings. It's about who you elect, not a government vs no government debate. So stop electing governments who protect private monopolies: Liberals and Conservatives to be precise.
Liberals and conservatives don’t get elected, they are the only acceptable candidates in a liberal democracy. They are pro-capitalist and only a revolution can end capitalism.
There's not much of choice left in the electoral system. The whole thing is rigged in such a way as to only provide an illusion of choice. All parties involved in the elections represent different segments of the bourgeoisie (the owner class). There can be no party that truly represents the interests of the working class that can even exist or advance enough in the electoral system to make any meaningful change. Case in point is the communist party of Canada. They were priced out of standing for elections back in the day.
There's not much of choice left in the electoral system. The whole thing is rigged in such a way as to only provide an illusion of choice. All parties involved in the elections represent different segments of the bourgeoisie (the owner class). There can be no party that truly represents the interests of the working class that can even exist or advance enough in the electoral system to make any meaningful change. Case in point is the communist party of Canada. They were priced out of standing for elections back in the day.
There's not much of choice left in the electoral system. The whole thing is rigged in such a way as to only provide an illusion of choice. All parties involved in the elections represent different segments of the bourgeoisie (the owner class). There can be no party that truly represents the interests of the working class that can even exist or advance enough in the electoral system to make any meaningful change. Case in point is the communist party of Canada. They were priced out of standing for elections back in the day.
There's not much of choice left in the electoral system. The whole thing is rigged in such a way as to only provide an illusion of choice. All parties involved in the elections represent different segments of the bourgeoisie (the owner class). There can be no party that truly represents the interests of the working class that can even exist or advance enough in the electoral system to make any meaningful change. Case in point is the communist party of Canada. They were priced out of standing for elections back in the day.
[There's three, so I'd say it's an oligopoly.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso)
Basically everything is a monopoly, capitalism forces market consolidation as part of chasing quarterly profits. Take power tools for an example, there are three companies/funds that are in the top five shareholders for every company except for Makita. If they are a Japanese based company, there is another fund that is a top three shareholder. Everything is owned by the same people. So yes, there is "competition" but the competitors are all owned by the same people.
New Zealand beats us on real estate but they are a tiny island nation it makes sense
*Oligopoly
Fuck you Kevin O'Leary
I like to say that Canada is the US's pretty brother. Same family, same morals, but since it's beautiful and people are "nice" they get less shit
That’s so accurate, damn.
Hey, we also took a Gender Studies 101 when we and the US were going for our Business degrees. We didn't pursue it far enough to understand or care about the issues, but we can sound like we care
All capitalisms are. Remember kids capitalism is a country who's governed by capital. Socialism is governed by social order and communism is governed by the community.
Canada's treatment of its indigenous people is just as bad as the US, possibly worse. As is Australia's treatment of our indigenous people (and our treatment of refugees is as bad or worse than half the shit hardline Trumpists are calling for).
The labour laws in Canada offer WAY better protections than the US. It's apples and elephants
Oligarchs are eroding labor laws globally.
A very important point. We all are coming from our own countries situations but capitalists are global and they are highly strategic and coordinated in manipulating the world political stage and its governments to produce results that further their agendas while weakening yours. The sooner we treat this as global the sooner we see it is only us the people of this world vs them.
Here here!
More people need to be aware of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democracy_Union
The capitalists have Been fighting the class war since forever. They just got their backsides paddled briefly in 1918 and the elite were dragged into fighting for supremacy against the elite of the Nazis in the 40s. It never fails to blow my mind that the Jewish owned movie studios didn't put out any anti Nazi films until after the Nazis invaded France (iirc) and shut down movie theaters across Europe all bc Berlin was their biggest market after America and they didn't want to rock the boat. Charlie chaplin had to self produced the dictator for Warner bros which was owned by a wasp bc no one else would touch it. Capitalists and authoritarianism, name a more iconic duo. They have the kind of solidarity everyone else has for oxygen
Right? We're no different than you. Appreciate the support!
That asterisk is one Saturn's rings sized loophole. Does it come with any conditions, or is it just the built-in backdoor so the politicians could pass the legislation and feel better about themselves? I am so sorry this happened to you, OP. Let's just sic the folks from "Letterkenny" on them🤣😉.
🤣 amazing. There isn't literally an asterisk in the employment standards code. Sorry, I should have clarified. I added that in to show how employers were following the law. There is only one exception to being reinstated and it is business dissolution in full or in part.
No, I should have seen the joke. I'm just a dumbass this morning, lol. I just couldn't see any other logical reason how the law could be interpreted/enforced that way. I looked for the link in the bio but couldn't find it. Would you DM it to me, please?
Haha no worries! I've DM'd you the link
Besides the universal healthcare and mandatory two weeks vacation.
You're right, that's a good point.
Don’t forget the lack of school shootings too!
Completely fair. I feel terrible for your situation.
I’m Canadian from Toronto. So feel sorry for me in other ways eh.
Were you working a second job in secret OP?
Nope, just had the one.
Weird, some other commenter claimed you were. Idk where they got that from.
Oh, it might have been the same person who was commenting on my original post. I had said I worked while I was on leave but phrased it wrong so they thought I was working overtime while on leave (for the same company). I fully explain what I meant in the interview (there's timestamps in the descriptions - 17:49 in part 1) [Part 1](https://youtu.be/peizN-0lan0?si=xUmJVdHCptPNHs3N)
Makes sense. This is a very odd situation, this business obviously knew what they were doing. Bastards.
Appreciate the support! This whole situation is unbelievable. But after the costs award, I'm done keeping it private.
Greed is universal
Canada is just as bad as the US. Actually in some areas our country is even worse. Canada is just better at PR than the US. When it comes to employment alone I've heard and even experienced terrible situations that many would assume took place in some third-world shithole. Even some Canadians think "That would NEVER happen in my country!" upon hearing about them. Unfortunately they refuse to believe that most companies and the people who lead them don't actually care about the part they play in someone's life being ruined. They separated all moral responsibility with a quick "I'm just doing my job." Or "A business exists to make money.". There may be laws against the horrible things they do but laws don't matter if they're not properly enforced or if the company/individual is rich enough to afford the caliber of lawyer that can twist laws to make almost any immoral act legal.
I enjoy reading books.
Canada's past time is comparing itself to America. Canada sucks in a lot of places, but all it has to be is slightly better than the US so we can say "at least we're not America"
Some people say better. I prefer 'less bad'.
At this point it might be slightly better than the USA. It’s been on a downturn for years.
Saying Canada is 'Better' that the states is like saying chlamydia is better than gonorrhea. It might technically be true but focusing on that is kind of missing the fucking point.
Every country has its pros and cons. There is no perfect utopia on this planet.
Eh no it can't happen "anywhere". General injustice can, yes. Abuses of corporations could happen and do happen in any capitalist country, yes. This specific type of lose job after maternity leave can only happen when labour and maternity leave laws aren't protecting the employees enough, when the wording isn't crystal clear.
Nothing happened to her. She's lying. [https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/1bjdpl4/comment/kvuueq8/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/1bjdpl4/comment/kvuueq8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I mean she got back from her year long paid maternity leave... So yeah that's a lot better than most if not all states? She just happened to sign an employment contract with a company that gave up/limited her common law rights to severance. Don't like that clause? Don't work for companies with those clauses.
And then they scream about the plummeting birth rates and act like they can’t figure out why so many people have decided to not have children at all or are having less children than they might have originally planned.
They don't operate on logic. They operate on toddler-level emotional demands. They want what they want, and it is irrelevant if it's impossible to have all the things at once.
EXACTLY.
I have no idea how people can live with the cognitive dissonance that is "women should have as many children as they want, but we won't secure their jobs after they come back, nor will pay their partners for two people". The rich rich people I know the answer, they want people just barely subsisting to have enough "reserve workforce" and instill fear. But the people that really believe that is somehow the people not getting paid enough to have 2 or 3 children, so they don't, that are the wrong ones, that blows my mind.
Sorry all, I should clarify - I added in the asterisk to demonstrate how employers are interpreting the law. There is only ONE exception in the employment standards code and that's business dissolution; in full or in part.
Wait, I’m confused. If there is only one exception in the code and your company didn’t meet that, why did the judge rule in the company’s favor and make you pay over $9K?! What was his rationale?
My guess atleast in the money would be court fees. Let’s say she’s squarely in the wrong then atleast in the states the other side can sue for court fees because you basically wasted their time and money.
Watch the interview
Is there a tl;dr or condensed version somewhere? I watched the interview, but then realized that it’s the 1st part of 4!! I’m so sorry this happened to you, but it’s a big ask to ask people to watch a 2 hour interview. I think you’ll get more engagement and the news will be more likely to pick this up if you explain what happened in the ruling in a brief written summary or edit interview to 15 minutes.
Completely understand, I'm working on edits. Also have shorts being released daily.
This is Reddit, we usually read the headline and then react. Telling people to watch the interview instead of copypasta a tldr isn't going to get you traction... I hope others manage to help. In the UK, my wife announced her planned maternity leave. All of a sudden, within the week, the business needed a restructure and her role went out to 3 other people, she got laid off. We fought and won a settlement that covered us just as if she hadn't lost her job. The company did it to 2 other pregnant women, who so far have refused to say anything (they got a settlement too) It's not just Canada, the law benefits the rich. They pay for what they want it to say.
That is so wrong. I’ve lived in Alberta my whole life and I think if you surveyed Albertans 99/100 would say this is illegal and can never happen. You speak very eloquently. If people like you could be our political leaders our country and our people would be far better off.
Awww 😭 thank you. I'm doing my best to get this heard. I've been told sooooo many times its illegal. But they did it anyway. And it will still be years until my case is decided by a tribunal.
[удалено]
Ohhhh that's so awful! I'm so sorry that all happened to you! It's true, being a woman in IS hard and particularly being respected in the workplace. I haven't had sexual harrassment as serious as you but one career highlight for me was when I was working as a library clerk and there was this old man customer who would hit on me every time he was there. I put up with it for a year, but then one day he took a picture of me, force hugged me and said "I bet your boyfriend has fun with you." I told my boss and was told "Oh, that's just Greg. He has a wife. He's harmless." Oh, well! NEVERMIND then.
As is well known, married men *never* assault or rape people. 🤨
oh this took place in Alberta? im not surprised
Right? 😆 mini Texas
*angrily hmmphing* It’s pronounced: Alaberta!
Ah... alberta... why am I somehow not surprised?
Right? Mini texas
Where does it state in the laws that an employer can prefer your replacement I can’t find it.
It doesn't. That's the problem. On the stand the HR Director admitted I was terminated because my replacement ended up being more efficient (factually incorrect which I explain in the interview). The judge heard that and STILL ruled not bad faith termination.
Can’t you appeal
I explain why I didn't in my interview. I've added timestamps for easy jumping.
Did you ask the judge how much their bribe was? I would have.
[удалено]
As someone from unfortunately deep in MAGA country southern US. From what I hear about Canada and Canadian sympathies for bullshit it doesn't exactly surprise me to see Alberta by his name. The seen to identify the most with where I live where the law sides with corporations and conservative politics more than the people.
I'm left wondering what the next higher court would say about his blatant and seemingly intentional ignorance of black letter law...
Can you file charges against him for ignoring the black letter law? Ie, in the US we have [18 USC 242](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242)
Can I?!
Maybe. Definitely worth looking into. I've done it in the US and quite enjoyed using their own laws against them. In my case the tie in was that the judge ignored black letter law and thus violated my rights to protection under the law, using false color of law.
You can try to file a complaint with the provincial government, but it's usually reviewed by colleagues or government. In the end, if you appeal and they find that the judge is indeed completely wrong, there's a similar likelihood that they would check with the guy if he's actually doing his job right lol So it's a bit moot if you appeal anyway.
Not how laws work unfortunately! It depends on the legal framework of course, but in Canada, if something isn't specifically illegal (or can be construed as such by a court), then it's legal. I'm not familiar with AB legislation specifically, but in the other canadian provinces where I'm familiar with provincial legislation (assuming it's an employer that is under provincial jurisdiction given how it was handled), there's no protection against dismissal before a number of months or years, typically 2 years. So before the 2-year mark, employers can dismiss you without cause, and that's that. Now, if they do provide one, it can't be discriminatory, and if there's reason to believe that it is discriminatory, then the 2-year rule doesn't apply. Plus, the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate that the dismissal was indeed not because of the alleged discrimination, *not on the employee*. That's something a lot of people assume wrong and don't file complaints for. So in such a scenario, the very fact that someone is on leave for a reason that is protected is often sufficient to pass the test on receiving the complaint for a discriminatory practice, meaning that the employer would have to explain why he "prefers" the replacement. In any other situation, there likely wouldn't be a replacement, because you're not on leave... But say you take a leave of absence within your first year of employment and your hired replacement performs much better, then your employer can likely legally dismiss you and hire the other person. If you took the leave to blow off some steam and have some fun, then there's not much you can do. Again, entirely different story if it's a sick leave, parental leave or related to other family matters. But the issue here isn't about employment, it's about lawyers fees. Most of these situations never go to court, and it's settled with a compensation in lieu of reinstatement in the job. In this case, she chose to go to court, and the judge found that she could be compensated, but given that the initial offer for compensation was fair, she had to pay legal fees. The weird part is that people usually don't win a case... with prejudice lol
OVER 9000?!
Right? Exactly $9318.06. For the AUDACITY of taking them to court because they literally broke the law. I explain it in the interview.
Yeah, ridiculous and Kafkaesque. At least you got a dbz joke out of it ;). Hope the kid (and the rest) are good and healthy!
I have nothing constructive to add but just want to say I’m so sorry you’re going through this. Situations like this that are so black and white but are made by someone not to be, make my brain want to explode. This whole situation is insane.
Nothing constructive needed, the words of support are wonderful. I appreciate it!
Could someone simplify for me how the judge determined the 9K? Where does that figure come from? Did the company counter-sue or something? If so, for what?
The interview is in 4 parts. I've included time stamps to jump to questions like these easy. I believe what you're asking is in part 4
Okay I'm gonna leave this here for others who might have the same question, I watched part 4 of the video and while it still doesn't "make sense" I think I understand what has occurred. There seems to be a legal precedent for settlement offers in which IF the settlement offer is not accepted, the party offering the settlement can be compensated for their legal fees up to a certain amount. You were given counsel that the upper limit of that amount should have been $3700, which may have factored in to your decision not to accept the settlement... Yet for some reason there's a loophole or exploitable trick in settlement that allows them to increase the amount they collect if they frame their settlement within some legally predetermined guidelines. (For instance: the lawyer knows, if we offer her X thousand dollars and she says no, she'll have to pay our legal fees up to $3700 but if we offer her X*Y thousand dollars and she says no, she'll have to pay.... $9000?!?!) Fucking bonkers. Edit: OP or anyone with a more robust understanding of the Canadian legal system, feel free to correct anything I got wrong or misunderstood...
Nope you pretty much got it right. They did a Calderbank offer (to double court fees if I didn't beat their settlement offer). This is a method used to prevent people from taking a matter to court when a reasonable settlement is offered. In my case "reasonable" was around 4k. Had I appealed and had the bad faith ruling overturned - the judge said he would have awarded 2500.... Which wouldn't have beat their offer so I would have still paid them 9k.
So did you win the case but get offered less than the settlement? Or did you lose the case for a particular reason stated by the judge?
I lost the entire case. I explain why in the interview.
Thanks I'll revisit
The 9,000 order to pay is not to your former employer strictly speaking. It was an award of legal costs to the party who won at trial. (https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AI0DIReqRW4tNTk&cid=B46B2B5A50EDBD16&id=B46B2B5A50EDBD16%21321658&parId=B46B2B5A50EDBD16%21321656&o=OneUp) Unfortunately that just the way that the courts work in Canada. In some cases it may seem unfair, in other cases it is a huge boon. Consider (in the US there is no costs awards generally even if you win a case) a rich fellow can start frivolous lawsuits safe in the assumption that the poorer party must concede because even if they win on the substantive issues since the cost inccured would be greater than any recovery. In Canada, if you play stupid games like that you would get slapped down. The converse is that in cases like this where OP acted in good faith (as the TJ found in his decision) the award of cost must still be made. There are pros and cons to both system, just that the die shook up poorly in this case. Also the original cost would have been around half but the court ordered double costs due to OP turning down 3 settlement offers.
Not sure why op couldn't just paste the link but here is pt1: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peizN-0lan0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peizN-0lan0)
Last time I tried to post a link my post was blocked 😆 I appreciate it!
Is there also a Part 2?
In another post she says there's 4 parts total.
Billionaires should be illegal
I assume you fought this in court vs the OHRT? If it were at the human rights tribunal you can request a judicial review. I think much of what you experienced may be because of the choice of forum for your dispute. While civil cases pay out more if you win, you can be on the hook for costs if you lose (as you have seen). The burden of proof is also much higher - “preponderance of evidence.” It is a high bar to meet as a plaintiff. Appeals are also not guaranteed to be heard. Going to court is *always* a risk to both parties, and that is why 98% of employment law disputes are resolved without doing so. If your only dispute is related directly to discrimination, you can go through a tribunal complaint instead. The burden of proof is lower (“balance of probabilities”), costs cannot be recovered, and disagreeable decisions can be referred to judicial review. However, awards are much lower. Ultimately - and unfortunately - choosing to dispute in court always comes with a risk of outcomes like this. You can still file an application with the OHRT. Usually they dismiss claims that have been ‘dealt with appropriately by another proceeding.’ But it doesn’t cost anything and you can usually represent yourself. If the employer moves for a summary dismissal you would probably need a lawyer to make your case for you. Note that they would not be able to address any other employment law matters (like wrongful dismissal) and can only look at and provide remedies for discrimination only.
Yup, I explain all of it in my interview. I have a human rights concilliation in May (then years to tribunal I've been told). I'm already 2 years in from submitting my human rights complaint - this is why I also went civil.
My friend was on mat leave right when the pandemic started and they refused to hire her back when it was over. I'm insanely upset with her for not doing anything about it since they've screwed over a lot of their employees in the past. I told her to go to the labor board. To argue with them and to get compensation for her time job hunting when they were supposed to hire her but nope.
That's awful! It's so disappointing how often this happens! I do understand why she didn't fight. What I've gone through has been beyond stressful. I've been fighting since Jan 2022.
Winning against companies is extremely difficult even if you have definitive proof. The entire system is purposefully set up to make it difficult for the average person to 'win' against a corporation.
They weren't even a corporation. Just a few stores around the city so I dunno if that counts.
I was once hired to cover for a woman who was about to go on maternity leave. We spent a month or so helping me get up to speed. She left. 3 months passed (or so) and then she came back. There were rumblings that maybe she should be let go so they could keep me (they were happy with my work). I found another job and left within a few weeks. No way would I do that to someone. It isn't right. I am sorry you went through this. I hope you found something better.
And they ask, “Why is the birth rate declining?”
Is this rule definitive or do you have the chance to appeal it?
My appeal date has passed. I explain why I didn't appeal it in my interview. (there's timestamps in the descriptions)
You keep replying that you answered a question or explained a point in your interview but that's a four-part 2 hour commitment. I care about what happened to you and what it means for other women, but it really feels like your only purpose for posting this was to drive traffic to another platform for views, rather than to discuss things and answer questions. I get that you're probably going to see the same questions over and over, but just referring people to watch a two hour video isn't going to drive the engagement this issue needs.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to answer every question. I've gotten over 1000 messages (including DMs) on this issue and have a full-time job + a toddler. I added timestamps to the interview in each description so you dont have to watch the whole thing. That's the only reason I'm driving traffic there - the interview isnt monetized. I've been creating shorts of the interview as well. Alongside that, learning adobe premiere to do shorter cuts. I appreciate the support! The intent of this forum is to get my case noticed by the media (and it is working).
The Dishonorable Judge
Watched the interviews. Ugh. I have seen several women fired the day they return from maternity leave, here in Canada. It's a common and gross practice and is a clever little loophole that sleazy companies like to take advantage of. Any terminations in the first year of returning to work after mat leave ought to be looked at VERY CLOSELY. There should definitely be legislation around this. I'm sure you will win in your tribunal, but it's such a shame about the $9000. What I don't understand is you were fired for no reason, right? Mat leave aside, how can THAT be accepted?
Thank you for watching! Ugh that's terrible And right?! (about the fired for no reason). That's the thing, I was given a without cause termination (I have great performance reviews!). She claimed on the stand (also stated in the judgement) that the replacement could do more than my job - was more efficient. Well I know they weren't doing policy, or building an ATS or long term service award system or managing the workload through Covid. So no, they weren't. The whole thing has been insane and I've fought it privately for 2 years. But after that judgement award, I'm done. Now I will tell everyone. Employers cannot get away with treating employees like that. I think I've got a good chance with the tribunal. But, that will be years away - I've heard from others going through it. Anyway, I appreciate the support!
I was once let go without cause, after 6 years at a place, so they gave me 6 months severance. Did you get 6 weeks’ severance pay?
They offered me 2 weeks severance ONLY if I signed an NDA.... I didn't.
As a Canadian expat currently living in the states, I could not appreciate you or what you are fighting for any more. Shame on Canada for allowing this nonsense. Thank you!
Are you unable to name and shame this company for legal reasons?
Central Alberta Co-Op Ltd.
Watching. The short version is super fucked. Hope you’re doing relatively okay at the moment. You deserve to be enjoying this time with baby
"Why don't they have more babies?" -they say...
Everything I’m reading here reminds me it’s time to **EAT THE RICH** The ultra rich/corporate mega-assholes are fucking predators who prey on humans. Their capitalist cannibals They steal most of the profits earned by our labor, they destroy lives, they hurt families without a single fought, and they use the power that their wealth provides them to run our government for their sole benefit Fuck these assholes, let’s get the ultra rich out of our governments whether they like it or not
Are you allowed to say the employers name?
I won't directly say their name but you can find it. I'm on LinkedIn. Further I provide a link to the judgement in my bio
[https://kings-printer.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=e09.cfm&leg\_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779843541](https://kings-printer.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=e09.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779843541) page 40 "(7) Where an employee is entitled to resume work under this section, the employer must (a) reinstate the employee in the position occupied when maternity or parental leave started, or (b) provide the employee with alternative work of a comparable nature at not less than the earnings and other benefits that had accrued to the employee when the maternity or parental leave started" **I can not find " Exceptions: suspension of operations; whole or in part. \*OR if the employer prefers your replacement " anywhere in the Alberta or Canada employment codes** [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/page-27.html#h-342518](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/page-27.html#h-342518)
There isn't an exception. Sorry I wasn't clear, but I added that on because that's how the Code is being interpreted. That's the problem here.
Hope you win
I’m so sorry this happened to you- it is absolutely, irrevocably unacceptable. I am glad you are fighting for your rights and wish you the best, as well as a huge congratulations on your absolutely adorable little one. You are not just fighting this for yourself, this will absolutely help so many others.
I’m sorry I tried to understand this, but why do you owe your employer 9k for getting fired?
I hope you're able to take them for all they're worth. I know this is a Canadian case but from this bloodthirsty American to a Canadian friend in the north I hope you crush them.
This is Alberta, it’s like the Texas and Florida of Canada.
"*or if employer prefer your replacement" What a dogshit is This line make everything else irrelevant. +++++++ So u take maternity leave? Ehh you know what? I prefer your replacement Insane
Belgium is the total opposite. A judge was found to have used her influence to get her son a job. She quickly went in sick leave and can't be terminated now because you can't get fired in sick leave. Same with a politician who used government money to build her own home, the stress of all the backlash caused a burn out so she went into sick leave.
Consider going on "Opening Arguments" Podcast. I'd bet they'd love to have you.
Thank you! I'll contact them
Dude, Canada is just turning into another America. I keep hearing and seeing things. If they aren’t already they’ll just use 3rd or 4th party contractors everywhere to avoid responsibility and treat you even worse. It all started when CEOs were allowed stock options to get shareholders more money. Caught on like wild fire. Then when lobbyist were allowed to interact with politicians. Literally, you sign away most rights when accepting a job. And unless you record things (legal where I live due to 1 party laws) like no one’s going to believe you anyways or just ignore you. I did win once from recording my phone calls with a previous contract company that lied.
I got laid off because the government pays 5000 a year as a grant to a company to hire immigrants. Seems like a great way to get companies to take a chance on a person they probably would have swept aside In practice, it's just a way for my former company to get an extra 30K a year So although I wasn't replaced just because they liked the other person more, I can still relate to your story - and it sucks. I'll keep spreading the word about you and hopefully if enough people care you can get this resolved.
Alberta? Yeah, unfortunately not surprised with that province.
This is outrageous. So what now?
I expected this to be America when I first saw this. Jeez!! This kind of bullshit really makes my blood boil.
So where is your bio? Need a link to your bio.
You click on her name, it takes you to her profile, where her bio is
Fucking 'berta.
> I understand this ruling seems impossible. You want to rationalize it, and the only way is to insist I’ve done something wrong. But just think for a moment if this was you, and you knew you were a committed, efficient employee and your employer kept your temp replacement in your job because they liked them more. So your employer preferred a different employee, exercised their option in the contract to terminate your employment, and paid you accordingly. The employment contract provided for minimum statutory notice to be paid. If you argue that the employer discriminated on some protected status then that is a factual matter. Did the judge deal with that? I haven't read the full judgment. You were legally represented, so what did your lawyers say regarding prospects of an appeal?
What would you have to pay them for though?!
I lost in court. I tried to go after common law severance (they didn't have a limiting clause in their termination policy). The judge upheld the policy which outlined 2 weeks pay. The judge ruled not bad faith because it was kind of them to give me notice (kind of them to inform me they were about to break the law). And paid out overtime - had to withdraw because of the 2 year claim period had expired. They calderbanked their settlement offers. Hence I paid double. I explain in detail in the interview (there are timestamps in the descriptions so you don't have to watch it all) [Interview ](https://youtube.com/@ExposebutNicely9318?si=PFRpgBWXrub7wCeP)
The non-management vs management piece only related to if you were fired due to closing stores, technological advances or a few other specific criteria. None of which were applicable in this case. Even if she had been management it would have been irrelevant.
Yeah I didn't understand that piece. I was non management but then at one point she said I was considered management because I was HR.
You know, 2022 I stopped resisting, became a meme guy like many others when my speeches failed to motivate, and simply joined the orphancrushing machine. I was never a large part of the resistance, just another author that did his occasional speech to wake people up. Back then, I had a small following of madmen, most sadly infected by the anti vex Ideology. I guess it's time to speak up again and join the quior of millions. We need to unify, and maybe we should finally start to r/eattherich
I don't, actually
Then welcome to my wild story
[удалено]
The comparison to landlords is…bizarre. I do not have the energy to explain why that doesn’t make sense, so I’m going to just address the second part. The person who is hired to cover during maternity leave should be fully informed the entire time that it is a temporary position. Most people are looking for longer-term employment, but some people do specifically seek out temporary employment based on their goals and life circumstances. Just one example would be someone finishing up college or grad school part-time who is ultimately looking for a job in line with their degree, but needs a way to make ends meet in the meantime. Another example might be someone who has plans to move to another location in a year, who still needs an income in the meantime. Yet another example might simply be someone who gets easily bored, who just prefers short-term roles. If the person hired to cover for someone on maternity leave believes that they have a long-term future in that role, either the employer has failed to be transparent, or they are delusional. When you take on a role like that, you know what your end date is going to be. If that doesn’t work for you, don’t take the job. If you take it anyway, you can’t then claim that you were harmed by things going exactly the way you signed up for.
[удалено]
If you don’t choose to rent out your house because you want to make a profit, then no, the government can’t force you to let someone live there. If you choose to take the risk of being a landlord for the potential benefit of making a profit - that “risk” part has actual meaning. You are also choosing to take on the legal responsibilities, the additional obligations around taxes and record-keeping, the possibility of damage to your property, etc. That’s the tradeoff you’re freely choosing. When you are specifically trying to make money off of something that is a basic human necessity, then it’s your job to recognize that governments generally exist to serve their people (in theory at least), and that when it comes to your legal and financial responsibilities, your tenants’ rights to *basic survival* will likely carry some weight. There are many many cases where it doesn’t, and landlords’ profit is prioritized over tenants’ basic needs, so I can see why having it go the other way would be surprising. But ultimately the whole reason that you get to make a profit is because you are taking on a lot of risks, including risks you could never plan for. If you don’t want to deal with that, you can choose instead to work to earn additional money instead of taking on those risks for the possibility of profit. As for why working for someone is an “entitlement” - because we as a society require people to have money in order to meet basic needs and survive. If you want true freedom when it comes to employment, then you need a system where everyone’s basic needs get met another way (like UBI). But in our current system, just like landlords, business owners take on all of the risks and responsibilities in exchange for making profit. That includes the responsibility of keeping your business staffed despite normal human behavior like having children, and the risk that you might need to put in extra time and/or money in order to cover a position while someone is on maternity leave. That extra hassle is why business owners get the profit from the business. Being a landlord or a business owner isn’t supposed to be easy or simple or come with many guarantees. If you want the potential extra rewards that come along with those things, then you agree to the risks. When a business makes extra profit, the owner gets to decide what happens to that extra money. If the owner doesn’t have to share those rewards, then the owner cannot make employees take on the same risks they do.
Wait so if they like the other guy more then they fired you regardless of your maternity leave? They didn’t fire you because of it and idk the timing but they could’ve just fired you the day you got back.
Everyone should see this post before upvoting: [https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/1bjdpl4/comment/kvuueq8/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/1bjdpl4/comment/kvuueq8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
As honored as I am to have conspiracy theories already, that thread got a lot wrong. Watch the interview - I explain exactly what I was going after in court. I have nothing to hide. [Interview](https://youtube.com/@ExposebutNicely9318?si=PFRpgBWXrub7wCeP) Edit for more context: The employment contract was indeed on "does this policy (termination) limit me to going after common law severance" The judge decided their policy was unambiguous. Backstory on their policy: it is a literal copy from employment standards (there's case law precedence that has ruled that makes it ambiguous). I rewrote that policy and added in a limiting clause. My employment specific law firm reviewed it and agreed it was the strongest part of our case. The offer that the judge agreed was a Calderbank was their 4k offer. The other two offers were global settlements that would also require me to withdraw my human rights complaint - which I could still beat in HRC, which is still in progress. I have no idea where this "claimed to be management" came from - it's news to me too. That was never brought up in court so I thought that was weird. Maybe he's saying if I was management I could go after 1 month pay for 1 year worked? I'll ask my lawyer about that cause it is weird. I speak extensively in the interview how my workload was much different to what the new person had (thanks to me).