The appellants' second ground of appeal is essentially founded on waiver or estoppel, both of which were expressly rejected by the trial judge at para. 76 of his reasons: No cases were submitted in which a court held that a past practice of granting consent benefits had resulted in an accrued right to those benefits or otherwise binding the employer to continue granting consent in the future. Mair v. Stelco Inc., supra, is authority only for the proposition that past practice may indicate or limit the manner in which discretion must be exercised; past practice does not dictate the result.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.