University Business Law: Case Analysis, Legal Reasoning, and Outcomes

This document provides a detailed analysis of three business law cases. The first case, *Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31*, examines the duty of a dismissed employee to mitigate damages, highlighting the complexities of re-employment barriers like privacy, discrimination, and unfair treatment. The second case, *Brazeau v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers*, explores vicarious liability of employers for employee actions, specifically in cases of sexual harassment, and the requirements for summary dismissal. The analysis emphasizes the employer's responsibility to ensure a safe workplace and the implications of wrongful dismissal, including reasonable notice. The third case, *Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.*, concerns a franchise agreement dispute, clarifying that clear and unambiguous settlement agreements should be upheld, and that separate operations of M&M Meat Shops within Mac stores do not constitute a breach of agreement. Finally, *Black v. Molson Canada* involves a domain name dispute, where the court ruled in favor of Black, asserting that Molson did not have valid rights to the domain name, emphasizing the general nature of the word "Canadian" and the legitimacy of domain name purchases through online auctions. This document provides a comprehensive understanding of these key legal principles and their applications in business scenarios.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31, 2008 SCC 20 (CanLII).
Although the decision of the court way prima Faice seem like unfair to the employee, the court in
this case has correctly come to a decision that in some situation it is required for the dismissed
employee to mitigate damages by working for the same employer. The circumstances include
that there are no barriers to re-employment. However it is a known fact that barriers to
reemployment are mostly present. This may include privacy, discrimination or unfair treatment
on the part of the employer.
Brazeau v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 2004 BCCA 645 (CanLII).
The argument of the defendant was that the claimant had committed an act which was within the
scope of sexual harassment. This means that because of the action the claimant can be dismissed
from work without any notice under the rules of a summary dismissal. The argument on the part
of the claimant was that the defendant had failed to justify the fact that the actions of the
claimant justified the summary dismissal. The justification for holding the employer responsible
when one employee is found to have harassed another employee is that the employer is
vicariously liable for the actions of all employees. The employer is also liable to ensure the
safety of the employees in the workplace. Thus in this situation as the claimant and the young
girl were both employees of the union the act of one person to harm the safety of another would
make the employee liable. In the present situation if the claimant is successful in relation to the
wrongful dismissal claim, the employer should have ensured that they gave him a reasonable 24
months notice of termination or make payment in lieu of the notice.

2BUSINESS LAW
Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd. 2008 CanLII 4982 (ON SC).
In this situation the settlement agreement between the parties was unambiguous, straightforward
and clear and there is no requirement or law which would consider or admit any outside evidence
in relation to the negation which took place before the settlement agreement relating to what the
parties to it had intended. Where M&M operated by Mac are situated adjacent or within the Mac
stores, the terms of the franchise agreement, compliance of the agreement by the franchise
ensured that there is a clear autonomy between Mac stores and M&M at every location. The two
business were operated clearly by separate stores irrespective of whether they meet they are
adjacent or within the same store. This it can be stated that M&M adjacent or within Mac are
franchise store which are trading under M&M MEAT SHOPS and LES ALIMENTS M&M.
There is no breach of agreement and they should be allowed to sell meat. No the fact that the
M&M meat shops operating within Mac having separate signs will not have any impact as they
would still be a franchise of M&M meat.
Black v. Molson Canada, 2002 CanLII 49493 (ON SC), 60 OR (3d) 457
In relation to the case of Black v Molson, the domain is entitled to be used by black. This is
because Molson does not have valid rights, interest or title in relation to the domain name of
“canadian.biz” to be able to use it against Black. Therefore in this case Black can be considered
as the lawful registrant of the domain name against Molson Canada. This is also because the
word Canadian is very general and there was no information that the word was registered as a
trademark by Molson Canada. Any person should be allowed to use the domain name as it has
been purchased through the use of an online auction. The same conclusion had been drawn by

3BUSINESS LAW
the court with a case having similar facts which is American Airlines Inc. vs. WebWide Internet
Communication GmbH. Black had expressed his desire to use the domain name Canadian biz for
his own business. On the other hand it was not outlined by Molson Canada that how they are
intending to use the domain name.