Bill 146 Proposes Crack Down on Temporary Agencies and Limits Freedom of Choice for Construction WorkersSubject:Employment Standards, Labour Law, Occupational Health and Safety, Workers' Compensation - December 06, 2013
The Ontario Government has proposed legislation which would dramatically alter the legal landscape with respect to...
A recent sentencing decision involving the owner of a small roofing company suggests that the Courts may be shedding...
The Canadian courts, especially appellate courts, have consistently taken a conservative, cautious approach to awards...
The Federal Government has announced new changes this year to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program that will make it...
The Ontario Court of Appeal has sent a clear message that employers convicted of criminal negligence can expect to...
The next phase of compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (“AODA”)...
To be enforceable, non-competition agreements must, as a general rule, be reasonable and unambiguous in terms of...
Employers should quickly take advantage of recent developments in the Federal Skilled Trades Program. A...
The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned the Blue Mountain accident reporting decision.
A recent decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“Board”) has just made these considerations...
For years the term “Right to Work” state has been synonymous with jurisdictions in the American South,...
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Ali v O-Two Medical, which highlights the risks of taking a wait-and-see approach when giving notice of significant changes to employment terms and conditions.
One of the questions that have vexed employers over the years is how to respond to “off-hand” comments made by Ministry of Labour Inspectors in the course of investigations. Employers often wonder whether comments made by Inspectors about whether charges will be laid have any legal consequence.
After nearly a decade-long legal battle, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that employers are not prohibited by privacy legislation from providing employee personal contact information to their union representatives. The saga of this case carries lessons for employers with unionized and non-union employees alike.
Employers that decide to implement a profit sharing plan for employees should make sure that the terms of the plan are clearly spelled out. More often than not a dismissed employee will demand payment of this additional compensation upon termination of employment. Ultimately the employee’s entitlement will depend on the wording of the plan.
A recent decision of the Divisional Court raises the issue of when an individual can be found personally liable in a wrongful dismissal claim. This will be particularly pertinent for small business owners where confusion may arise as to whether the employer is a corporation or an individual.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in Ontario (Labour) v. Flex-N-Gate Canada Company, has overturned a lower Court finding found that an employer should be “rewarded” with a lower fine if it complied with an Order from a Ministry of Labour Inspector to make safety improvements after an accident.
A new Regulation under the OHSA will explicitly require that workers and supervisors receive basic occupational health and safety training as of July 1, 2014.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board recently made an important decision which may represent a significant shift in how it approaches allegations that employers have engaged in reprisals against workers who have filed harassment complaints.
Happy Holidays from Stringer LLP
Most employers are aware of their obligations under the Customer Service Standard of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (“AODA”). However, many employers are not aware of the upcoming requirements under the AODA Integrated Accessibility Standard.
A new regulation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act requires that workers and supervisors are provided with basic health and safety awareness training. These training requirements come into force on July 1, 2014.
In a decision that will come as little surprise to many labour practitioners, on both sides on the union-management spectrum, the SCC has ruled that it is unlawful for Alberta’s privacy legislation to restrict a union’s right to photograph people entering a struck workplace in public view and posting the photographs on its website. The Province has been given 12 months to re-write the law.
Two Kicks at the Can: Worker Allowed to Re-litigate WSIB Accommodation Dispute at the Human Rights Tribunal
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ruled that an employee can effectively challenge a WSIB accommodation decision by human rights application.
The Ontario Ministry of Labour has announced that its latest health and safety blitz will focus on hazards associated with recycling and waste management in the industrial and health care sectors. This blitz is part of an ongoing campaign to raise awareness and increase compliance with the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
Ontario’s Divisional Court has overturned a lower court decision, finding instead that an employee could not pursue a wrongful dismissal action after prosecuting an employment standards complaint.
One of the most challenging issues confronting employers is how to ensure the safety of their employees when they are performing work at the location of a customer. As one recent case shows, contractors can be held liable for safety violations at work sites they do not control.
Our Q3 webinar will be held on Thursday, October 10 and will run from 12 pm to 1 pm EST (including an interactive Q&A).
The Ontario Ministry of Labour (the “Ministry”) has announced a blitz of the retail industry for compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”). The blitz will run from October through to December 2013.
“Holding” Means What It Says: Court of Appeal Rejects Narrow Interpretation of Ban on Holding Cell Phones While Driving
Employers should take a moment to revise (or enact) strict policies expressly prohibiting holding of cellular phones while driving, in the wake of a recent Court of Appeal decision.
In a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Chevalier v. Active Tire & Auto Centre Inc., an employee with 33 years of service was awarded no damages on account of his failure to mitigate.
Since the Supreme Court decision in British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) has taken a more narrow approach to its jurisdiction to hear applications where another tribunal has dealt with the same or similar issues. However, recent case law suggests that the Tribunal is moving away from the more narrow Interpretation of its jurisdiction that was laid out in Figliola.
Event: Is the Sky Falling? Shift Shopping and “Family Status” Discrimination (Webinar)