Your search for ‘Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP’ returned 55 results

Technology and business process outsourcing is going global and law firms worldwide are embracing this specialized practice area.

On July 19, 2012, the British Columbia Court of Appeal released its decision on the issue of whether a partner in a partnership is an employee of that partnership for the purposes of the BC Human Rights Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a law firm partnership's mandatory retirement policy in McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, 2014 SCC 39. In doing so the Court found that the partner was not an "employee" entitled to age discrimination protection under the British Columbia Human Rights Code (the "Code").

Following our very successful The IP Year 2006 In Review,1 rated most popular Canadian article on the MONDAQ® website (www.mondaq.com) in February 2007, Fasken Martineau’s Intellectual Property ("IP") Group is pleased to present The IP Year 2007 in Review focusing on IP developments in the U.K. Our synopsis of the year 2007 significant IP related decisions and noteworthy developments in U.K. law will be helpful and informative for those interested in doing business in the U.K. since these may af

In a recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), the Court held that an equity partner of a law firm partnership was not considered an "employee" for the purposes of the British Columbia Human Rights Code (the "Code").

The Supreme Court of Canada has provided some important guidance regarding who qualifies as an "employee" under the British Columbia Human Rights Code.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision determined that an equity partner in a large national law firm was not an employee under BC human rights legislation.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ended the uncertainty generated by the case of McCormick v Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP (Fasken).

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision that an equity partner in a law firm was not an employee for the purposes of the B.C. Human Rights Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada has established the scope of the definition of "employee" in human rights legislation, holding that an equity partner in a law firm does not amount to an employee for the purposes of the British Columbia Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.210 (the "Code").

The Supreme Court of Canada released a decision on May 22, 2014 which is of great interest for lawyers, accountants, financial advisors, and other professionals who operate through partnerships.

As a result of significant judicial and legislative action, the year 2007 saw several important developments in Canadian copyright law. As a result of amendments to the Criminal Code stemming from complaints by movie industry groups such as the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association, "camcording" a film in a movie theatre was made an offence.

The Supreme Court of Canada nd the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom both had cause to consider the nature of partnership.

A discussion on whether equity partners at professional firms can take advantage of statutory employment law protections.