Counsel for terminated employees frequently plead as part of their claim that employees with long service should...
Superior Court Applies the “Johnstone Test” for Family Status Discrimination in Wrongful Dismissal ActionSubject:Human Rights - February 04, 2015
We have written before on the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Johnstone v Canada (Border Services) (see...
In 2014 we saw some significant changes to Canadian labour and employment law. New judicial decisions and...
Private sector employers must file an Accessibility Report by December 31, 2014 pertaining to compliance with the...
The Court upheld a significant award of damages for constructive dismissal because the employer did not offer to...
The recent Supreme Court decision in Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp signifies a major shift in the...
The Temporary Foreign Worker program continues to be under fire in the media, and the Government has released some...
Canada's new anti-spam legislation (CASL) exposes new vulnerabilities for employers.
A recent French language decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice indicates that more employers could be...
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Walmart violated the statutory freeze in Québec's labour...
Heightened vigilance is the order of the day. In the wake of a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court,...
Human Rights Tribunals across the country have been issuing damage awards which have raised the eyebrows of the...
Ontario's Court of Appeal has reduced the record $1Million punitive damages awarded at trial in Boucher v....
Increasingly, the courts are striking down termination provisions in employment contracts resulting in lengthy common law notice awards to employees. A recent decision from the Ontario Divisional Court continued this concerning trend.
Court of Appeal upholds decision granting employee notice period based on employment with predecessors
Court of Appeal affirms that corporate reorganizations and transactions cannot defeat employees' statutory entitlements on termination where there is a "sufficiently close relationship amongst the various companies".
Just cause is a difficult standard for employers to meet. In most cases, employees who are terminated from employment will be entitled to notice or pay in lieu of notice. However, there are circumstances where the courts will find that dismissal for cause is warranted, as illustrated in a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Agostino v Gary Bean Securities Ltd.
A recent case involving a federal government worker serves as an illustration of some of the unique issues raised by employee misuse of technology.
Employers are often surprised to learn of the risks of constructive dismissal when suspending non-unionized employees. In a recent decision, Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to decide whether an indefinite suspension with pay constituted a constructive dismissal.
Frank Portman to present at WSPS Conference & Trade Show: Understanding Bill 18: OHSA Protection for Young Workers and Unpaid Interns
Frank Portman to present at WSPS Conference & Trade Show: Understanding Bill 18: OHSA Protection for Young Workers and Unpaid Interns.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s bench recently reviewed the arbitrator’s decision in SMS Equipment, a case on which we have written before (see our update on the decision here), and one of the first in the current wave of cases concerning the entitlement of employees to accommodation for child care obligations under human rights legislation.
Last year, proposed changes to the Customer Service Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (“AODA”), were made available for public comment. A finalized version of these proposed changes has now been released. The purpose of many of the changes is to streamline the Customer Service Standard with the Integrated Accessibility Standard (which includes the Information and Communication Standard, the Employment Standard, the Transportation Standard and the Design of Public Spaces Standard).
2014 saw the introduction of three new leaves protected under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”). These new leaves can result in significant absences from the workplace, which will create new human resources challenges for employers. Professionals engaged in workforce management and HR must be aware of these new obligations to employees in order to avoid accidental breaches of the ESA.
Early Bird registration now open for the 16th Annual Ontario Employment Law Conference in Mississauga.
Allison Taylor will present this insightful webinar through the Ontario Bar Association on March 12.
A recent decision of Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal has provided clarity to a decades-long debate as to whether non-unionized, federally regulated employees can be terminated without cause.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the right to strike is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In cases dealing with particularly senior and specialized employees, significant notice periods may be awarded even for employees with short service. this is starkly illustrated by a recent case from the Ontario Superior Court.
When employees allege harassment in human rights complaints, they often refer to the creation of a “poisoned work environment.” A recent decision from Ontario’s Divisional Court helpfully demonstrates that something more than one or two discrete incidents is usually required to support such a finding.
2015 brings with it a payroll oddity that only arises once every 13 years: 27 bi-weekly payroll periods.
Ontario's Divisional Court has refused the Bank of Nova Scotia's application for leave to appeal the decision certifying a privacy class action to proceed.
The Supreme Court has ruled that birth mothers faced discrimination because they were forced to choose between benefits during parental leave and benefits for pregnancy leave.
A recent decision from the HRTO indicates that Figliola can still serve to protect the finality of a workers’ compensation tribunal decision
A recent case out of British Columbia signals restrictive covenants may be a factor supporting extensions in common law notice periods for terminated employees.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently endorsed a functional approach to the interpretation of restraint of trade clauses. This approach opens up the potential for many more clauses to be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and in turn findings of invalidity. This decision runs contrary to the current approach in Ontario and could signal a change in the approach of the Canadian judiciary to this critical question.
Thanks to all who attended our Annual Employers' Conference yesterday.
In the wake of the Divisional Court’s decision in the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board v Fair, human rights damages have been a hot topic. As you may recall, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario awarded significant damages in that decision which included an award of back pay for a period of approximately 10 years. However, similar to wrongful dismissal litigation, applicants in human rights proceedings have a duty to mitigate their damages by showing that they have made reasonable efforts to seek out suitable alternative employment.
Paramedics in Ontario and Québec have each challenged their respective employers' alleged failure to take reasonable precautions to protect them from exposure to ebola. Somewhat surprisingly, the result was different in each province.
A freshly filed class action lawsuit combines two current trends in employment litigation: a crackdown on unpaid positions and enforcement by class action.
In the second quarter of 2014, the Ministry of Labour conducted an enforcement “blitz,” targeting companies in several sectors with intern programs to determine if those programs were being operated in a manner consistent with the Employment Standards Act. Out of 56 businesses in the GTA inspected during the blitz, 37 compliance orders were issued.
This summer, the License Appeal Tribunal, which has jurisdiction over the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (the “AODA”), released its first decisions pertaining to AODA compliance. Employers should be aware of their AODA obligations and upcoming deadlines to avoid noncompliance penalties.
While employee theft is frequently grounds for termination, shades of grey do appear in the case law. In a recent case, the Ontario Superior Court enforced a settlement agreement in a wrongful dismissal action even though an employee had not told her employer of a loan she had taken from a social committee without permission.