On June 21st Ontario arbitrator Randi Abramsky held that an employer must meet a (relatively forgiving) reasonableness standard to adduce surreptitious video surveillance evidence.
I’ve been following this issue (see here and here, most recently), but am wondering the point. I find the split in the arbitral jurisprudence very frustrating and somewhat discrediting to our system of arbitral justice. I doubt our courts would take the unorthodox and interventionist “tiebreaker approach” recently taken by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, but this preliminary issue (which would be reviewed on the correctness standard) needs to find its way to court.
All About Information 