Publication
Motor Finance Redress: The Way Ahead
On August 1, 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited judgment in Hopcraft v Close Brothers Limited and on 3 August the FCA announced it would consult on a redress scheme.
Canada | Publication | April 10, 2025
On March 23, the Prime Minister of Canada called a federal election to be held on April 28. What are employers' obligations to ensure employees can exercise their right to vote? This legal update will address this question. Please note that the rules set out apply only to federal elections.
The Canada Elections Act1 (the Act) stipulates that every employee who is a Canadian citizen aged 18 or over is entitled to have three consecutive hours to cast their votes on polling day. These vary according to the provinces and territories of Canada as follows:
If employee schedules do not allow them to have three consecutive hours to go and vote before or after their shifts, the employer must grant them the necessary time to allow them to have the time required by law. The employer cannot deduct this period of absence from an employee’s salary.
It is important to note that the period of absence is granted at the employer's convenience. Thus, the employer can decide when it is appropriate for the employee to take time off to vote.
To illustrate the concepts outlined, we will analyze the following two scenarios:
It should be emphasized that all Canadian employees eligible to vote are subject to this obligation, except for employees who work for a transportation company and are outside their voting districts and to whom the employer could not grant this period of absence without adversely affecting transportation services.
Any employer who does not grant their employees the time they need to vote, or who deducts the period of absence spent voting from their salaries, may be subject to a fine of up to $2,000 and/or a prison sentence not exceeding three months.
Furthermore, the Act prohibits any form of intimidation, influence or obstruction aimed at preventing employees entitled to vote from exercising their rights. An employer who violates this rule is liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine of up to $20,000 and/or a prison sentence not exceeding one year. If the conviction is handed down following an indictment, the employer risks a fine not exceeding $50,000 and a prison sentence not exceeding five years, or either of these penalties.
Publication
On August 1, 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited judgment in Hopcraft v Close Brothers Limited and on 3 August the FCA announced it would consult on a redress scheme.
Publication
In this issue of our Compliance Quarterly Türkiye, we continue to inform our clients about the global and local compliance rules and regulations which impact Turkish businesses.
Publication
Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 1227 (07 October 2025) has clarified the extent of the obligation on the Charterer to redeliver a vessel following the termination of a Barecon 2001 charter and of the Owner’s right to require it to be redelivered to a port “convenient to them”.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2025