Emerging Challenges in the University Sector: - Hicks Morley

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3. Dublin v. Montessori, 2006 (ON SC)• A Board member inadvertently produced to theplaintiffs an email intended for her solicitor.• The email was sent from a home email addressthat she shared with her husband (not a Boardmember).• The defendants claimed the email ought to bereturned and treated as privileged.Emerging Challenges in the University Sector:Staying a step ahead – March 28, 2012
3. Dublin v. Montessori, 2006 (ON SC)• The Court held that the circumstances did notdisqualify the communication from being privileged,because the Board member intended for thecommunication to be confidential.• However, under one of the exceptions, the emailwas found to be not privileged because it was madein furtherance of tortious conduct.Emerging Challenges in the University Sector:Staying a step ahead – March 28, 2012
Page 6:
IntroductionSocial media benefits:
Page 10 and 11:
Social Media Issues: Students & Par
Page 12 and 13:
Legal ToolsNot-so-helpful precedent
Page 14 and 15:
Tips1. Review/revise computer use p
Page 16 and 17:
Pension and Benefits:Changing Lands
Page 18 and 19:
Reducing Pension Benefits• Signif
Page 20 and 21:
Reducing Pension Benefits• Defini
Page 22 and 23:
Halliburton Group Canada Inc. v. Al
Page 24 and 25:
Quinn v. New Brunswick, 2011 NBQB 1
Page 26 and 27:
Reducing Pension Benefits• Quinn
Page 28 and 29:
Retiree Benefits - Vesting Revisite
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Budget News - Pension• Reform mea
Page 38 and 39:
Budget News - PensionJSPPs (cont’
Page 40 and 41:
Budget News - PensionUniversity Pla
Page 42 and 43:
Pension and Benefits:Changing Lands
Page 44 and 45:
Highlights• Executive Compensatio
Page 46 and 47:
Executive Compensation• Base sala
Page 48 and 49:
Collective Bargaining• No wage fr
Page 50 and 51:
Collective Bargaining• To increas
Page 52 and 53:
Communicating During BargainingMich
Page 54 and 55:
Collective Bargaining 2012 - ETFO A
Page 56 and 57:
College Academic Bargaining• Prop
Page 58 and 59:
Employer Can Communicate During Bar
Page 60 and 61: Cannot Circumvent Union• Kingston
Page 62 and 63: Context Is Everything• Forinteck
Page 64 and 65: Communicating During BargainingMich
Page 66 and 67: Duty to Respond - General Principle
Page 68 and 69: Case Study 1: Nelson v. Lakehead Un
Page 70 and 71: Case Study 3: Miraglia v. Universit
Page 72 and 73: Harassment and Discrimination Polic
Page 74 and 75: Accessibility for Ontarians with Di
Page 76 and 77: IAS: Select Standards - 2012 and 20
Page 78 and 79: IAS: Select Standards - 2015 to 202
Page 80 and 81: AODA - Project Planning• over 20
Page 82 and 83: ACADEMIC FREEDOMCustody and Control
Page 84 and 85: Arbitration• The Faculty Associat
Page 86 and 87: Results1) Adjudicator held that the
Page 88 and 89: ACADEMIC FREEDOMCustody and Control
Page 90 and 91: Overview1. Solicitor/Client Privile
Page 92 and 93: 1. Solicitor/Client Privilege: Prin
Page 98 and 99: 2. Rules of Professional Conduct: R
Page 100 and 101: 2. Practical Example of Rule 2.03
Page 102 and 103: 2. Practical Example of Rule 2.03
Page 104 and 105: 2. Rules of Professional Conduct: R
Page 106 and 107: 3. Managing Communication Pitfalls
Page 108 and 109: 3. Managing Communication Pitfalls
Page 112 and 113: 3. Dublin v. Montessori, 2006 (ON S
Page 114 and 115: 3. Kaganovsky v. 2057057 Ontario In
Page 116 and 117: 3. Kaganovsky v. 2057057 Ontario In
Page 118 and 119: 3. Lana v. University of Alberta, 2
Page 120 and 121: 4. Who is the client?• Privileged
Page 122 and 123: 4. Who is the client?• Where the
Page 124 and 125: 4. Who is the client?• Difficulti
Page 126 and 127: 4. Who is the client?• Issues tha
Page 128 and 129: 4. Who is the client?• Does in-ho
Page 130 and 131: Solicitor/Client Privilege in theUn
show all

Emerging Challenges in the University Sector: - Hicks Morley

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?