Burning Down the (Boat) House: How the Common Law Helps Make Sense of Weber

AuthorBrian Langille
{  }
 
Burning Down the (Boat) House:
HowtheCommon Law Helps Make
Brin Lnie
This is a curious little paper. I like little papers but I am not so sure I
like them to be curious, at least at this stage of the game. But here it is.
First, a few words about what this paper is not. This paper is not an at-
tempt to have the nal say about Weber v Ontario Hydro, nor to reconcile
all of the jurisprudence which has followed. I have not read all of the post-
Weber decisions that try to make sense of the case. (I have read a few but
not all). However, having a complete grasp of that material is not critical
in this instance because I am not interested, at least for the purposes of
this paper, in what I see as the common view of Weber and the problems
it presents to the labour law community. Nor am I interested in the way
many arbitrators and Courts have responded to Weber — for example, by
actually dealing with, or deciding not to deal with defamation claims as
such. So this is not a paper which seeks to make a contribution to the
mainstream debate about Weber and its legal legacy.
Rather, I wish to pursue the idea that the mainstream debate, as far
as I have had to deal with it and as far as I can understand it, is often, in
[]  SCR  [Weber].
See the discussion of Innis Christie’s well known decision in ABT Building Products
Canada Ltd v Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local
434 (),  LAC (th)  [ABT Building] below at Part D.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT