Most employers and employees know about the Employment Standards Act, and that when an employee is fired by an employer in circumstances without employee misconduct, the employer has to give or pay the employee notice of roughly 1 week per year of employment up to a maximum of 8 weeks (it varies a bit from this format in the first 2 years of employment).

But did you know that an employee can be entitled to more notice under the common law?

Under the common law, which is made from judges’ decisions over time, an employer has to pay or give an employee “reasonable notice” if the employer fires them in circumstances without employee misconduct.

The court calculates what is reasonable notice by considering the “Bardal Factors.”  These factors are:

1. The age of the employee (generally if the employee is nearing retirement age this will factor in to a longer notice period);

2. The duration of employment (the longer the employment the longer the notice period);

3. The degree of responsibility of the position (generally the more responsibility and difficulty associated with the job, the longer the notice period); and

4. The availability of similar employment (if you are in a niche job where there aren’t any other jobs, then a longer notice period would be required than for a job with lots of job opportunities, such as sales).

The court says there is no set reasonable notice period and each case will be decided individually depending on the Bardal Factors. While there is therefore no set “notice period.” most awards trend to about 1 month per year of service under the common law versus 1 week per year of service under the Employment Standards Act. However, each case varies so it is important to get qualified legal advice from a lawyer unique to the facts of your specific situation.

Call us for more information:

A personal injury claim is where someone has been injured due to the intentional or negligent acts of another person or company.

When someone is injured and it is legally some other person or company’s fault, then they can pursue a law suit to get compensation for their injuries.

Generally speaking there are a few main types of claims for compensation that the injured person can make. These are called “heads of damages.” Think of these as a legally created “box” that the person claiming injury has to put their claim into in order to be legally entitled to compensation for it.

The main heads of damages are as follows:

1. Non-pecuniary damages: Most people have heard this type of damages referred to as compensation for pain and suffering. This is an amount of money to reflect the unpleasant nature of an injury and the pain associated with it as well as the impact on your day to day life. A judge has broad discretion in making an award for pain and suffering and generally will look at past court decisions involving similar injuries.

2. Past Income Loss: This is a claim for any money someone has lost because they were unable to work due to their injuries. A person making this claim has to show that their injuries stopped them from working, as opposed to some other reason.

3. Future Loss of Capacity: This is a claim for how someone’s injury may affect their ability to work in the future. This could be a claim for what the person would have made over their working life, if the person is completely disabled from working for life due to injuries, or it could be an amount to reflect that the person’s injuries make them less able to do certain types of jobs or limit them to part time work, for instance.

4. Special Damages: This is a claim for anything an injured person is out of pocket paying for. Usually this comes in the form of fees to get treatments not covered by universal Canadian healthcare, such as physiotherapy or massage therapy. This claim could also be for the cost to replace personal items damaged in an event that caused an injury, like if the force of falling broke someone’s watch. A person making this claim needs to have receipts for these costs in order to make a claim.

5. Future Costs of Care: If any injured person needs ongoing assistance or care, they can make a claim for the future costs of this.

There are certain other types of claims that a person can make in an injury claim, but the above are the most common.

Compensation is based on the individual facts of each case and you should consult a lawyer if you are injured and want to know how much compensation you may be entitled to.

Call us for help:

Since May of 2021, the Provincial Government of BC has changed the law so that all ICBC personal injury claims (i.e. all injury claims arising from motor vehicle accidents) are now subject to a “no fault” system similar to WCB claims and the injured victims of car accidents have been stripped of their rights to pursue a legal claim for fair compensation. Injured victims are no longer entitled to compensation for pain and suffering. The only claims still available are for coverage for medical treatments and income loss claims, but these claims are now much more limited.

As a result of these changes, there is no role for lawyers in most ICBC injury claims anymore and we no longer take such cases except in certain specific and rare exceptions. We do still take personal injury cases arising from non car accident related causes.

If you think these changes are unfair, we encourage you to talk to your local MLA. We are hearing more and more stories of people being left financially destitute due to these unfair changes and the reality is we all effectively have much less coverage under our car insurance for injuries than we used to have, but ICBC and the BC government has kept most of the additional profit. For instance, in the 2024/2025 fiscal year, ICBC made a net income of approximately $1.65 billion dollars. Keep in mind, ICBC was originally incorporated as a Crown Corporation to provide affordable insurance to BC citizens and to be a break-even enterprise, not a government cash cow.

Nick de Dominico, one of ICBC’s first adjusters and then a long-time mediator, now retired, has written a history of ICBC explaining how we got here that can be explored at the following link:   Home | ICBCHx

Disinheritance is a term used to describe a situation where someone is deliberately prevented from inheriting someone else’s property in circumstances where they would normally be entitled to. The classic example is a parent giving their entire inheritance under their will to their favoured child and cutting the other child completely out of the will.

In these types of circumstances, the disinherited person may have a legal claim to be entitled to a share of the estate.

In the case of a will that doesn’t make adequate provision for the will maker’s spouse or children, the disinherited person can make what is called a “Wills Variation Claim” to ask the court to rewrite the will and reapportion the will maker’s property on a fairer basis.

Unfortunately, in many cases a deceased’s property does not pass through their estate and instead is put into joint ownership with another person or is gifted to another person during the deceased’s lifetime, and a Wills Variation Claim is not possible. However, if there were circumstances that were suspicious, such as one adult child having an elderly parent with dementia transfer all the parent’s property to the one adult child, then that child’s siblings may have a claim to challenge the transaction on the basis of it being done with “Undue Influence” and it being an “Unconscionable” transaction. The law also presumes that if a parent puts property into joint ownership with an adult child that the transaction was not a gift, unless there is clear evidence it was, such as an agreement in writing.

If you think you have been disinherited, it is important to seek the advice of a lawyer to determine your legal rights. Also, if you are making a will or doing estate planning, it is important to seek the advice a lawyer so you don’t unintentionally create a legal headache for your loved ones when you pass.

Call us for estate planning help:

Generally, there are two main ways people operate their businesses in BC, although there are others. The two most common ways are to either operate as a sole proprietorship or to incorporate a company.

A sole proprietorship means simply you operate the business as the legal individual you are. You may pick a business name, but legally the business is you. John Smith might start a moving business and call it Smith’s Moving, but the business would legally be him doing business under that name.

If you incorporate a company, then you are creating a new legal entity that is considered a fictional person at law, with most of the rights and responsibilities real legal people have. An incorporated company can own property and enter contracts, and it can also be charged with crimes.

But why would anyone incorporate a company versus simply operating as a sole proprietorship? The answer is that there are pros and cons to each.

One of the biggest advantages to incorporating a company is the concept of “limited liability.” What this concept means is that if the company owes money to other people or companies due to debts or being sued for some reason, then its obligations to the people it owes money to are limited to what money or assets the company owns. In other words, the owners, or shareholders, of the company will not be responsible for the company’s debt if the company cannot pay. This allows the owner to carry on their business without risking their personal house or money if the business fails.

The second main advantage of incorporating a company is that it gives the owner(s) more options in terms of tax planning. Company taxes are much lower than income taxes, which in many cases allows the owners to take advantage of these different rates. For instance, if the business had a fantastic year and made way more money than the owner needed to live on, a sole proprietor would have to pay income taxes on all of the net income earned in the year. In contrast,  the owner of a company could take some money out of the company to live on, which would be subject to income taxes, but then leave some of the money in the company and pay a much lower corporate tax rate on that money. Obviously, an accountant would be the person to get advice from to understand the tax options that come with incorporation.

One of the advantages to a sole proprietorship is that it is much cheaper and easier to get the business started. A person would still need a business licence and may want to register their company name as a proprietorship (so someone else doesn’t use the business name or get the legal right to it). However, if you incorporate a company you will likely need the assistance of a lawyer to properly set it up.

Another advantage to a sole proprietorship is that the annual costs are also much less than with a company. An incorporated company needs to file certain documents with the corporate registry each year and do certain filings in its minute books. If the owner doesn’t know how to do these filings themselves, then they will need to hire a lawyer to assist. Also, a company must file a separate tax return each year which in most cases will mean that the business owner will have to engage an accountant. That said, the tax advantages that come along with being incorporated may far outweigh these costs and if the owner is in a “risky” business the limited liability afforded by a company may be well worth these additional costs.

Generally speaking, a sole proprietorship probably works best for a small one person start up business, but if the business is larger with many employees and is making sizeable revenue, then an incorporated company will be much more advantageous.

Each businesses’ needs are unique so you should contact a lawyer if you want to explore what business model would work best for you.

Call us for help: