|Published on January 11, 2017||Stringer LLP Admin|
When an employer terminates an employee without just cause in Ontario, it must either provide reasonable notice of the termination, or payment in lieu of notice. The length of the requisite notice period is based on several factors under common law, including age, character of his employment, and length of his service.
Under the Employment Standards Act (ESA), two companies may be treated as one where the intent or effect of their carrying on related business under common control has been to directly or indirectly defeat the intent and purpose of the ESA.
The common law has developed a more confined, “common employer doctrine” to deal with such situations. But, unlike under the ESA, it matters not whether the intent or effect was to avoid severance obligations. Instead, the courts endeavor to determine whether the alleged common employers could each be said to have been the employee’s employer.
Employees often assert that their service with prior and/or related employers should be combined for purposes of calculating their entitlements on termination.
The common employer doctrine recognizes the fact that businesses can be complex organizations, with varied corporate structures. Depending on the circumstances, the doctrine can operate to impose liability on entities that do not have a direct contractual relationship with an employee.
In a recent decision, the Ontario Divisional Court overturned a trial judge’s ruling that the first corporation’s obligations to employees “flowed” to the second.
In Paul Amaral v Verona Floors Inc, the corporations at issue were family businesses. The employee had worked for Legnotech since October 2008. After a family dispute, one of the Legnotech shareholders set up his own company, Verona. Both businesses continued to operate on the same premises, and many Legnotech employees left to work for Verona.
The employee in this case started working for Verona in January 2012. He continued to work on the same premises, and his employment duties were nearly identical to those he had been performing for Legnotech. Verona terminated his employment in August 2013.
The Divisional Court found that Legnotech and Verona were not common employers. The employees who went to work for Verona were made aware that they were moving from one company to a separate, new company.
Verona took over the lease of the premises from Legnotech, but did not purchase any of its assets. Although they had common shareholders and officers, they were separately controlled entities.
Further, the plaintiff had signed a new employment contract when he joined Verona, which made no reference to Legnotech. He also ceased taking instructions from and performing work for Legnotech, which remained in operation after he left. As such, the Divisional Court found that the employee had resigned from Legnotech in January 2012, even though he did not formally submit his resignation.
As a result of this finding, the Divisional Court reduced the trial judge’s award for wrongful dismissal damages by over $10,000, from $13,333.33 to $3,076.92, based upon a much shorter notice period.
This case underscores the importance of seeking advice from an employment lawyer regarding the corporate structure of your business(es), or when considering an acquisition. A corporate shell game will not prevent employees from asserting their rights, but neither can they go after the “deep pockets” just because two companies are tangentially related.
- Mitigation – A duty to act in your own professional interest
- Medical Evidence and Employee Absences
- Happy Holidays
- Employers Need “Reasonable Basis” to Allege Just Cause
- The Tail Wags the Dog: Federal Sector Employee Vetoes Employer`s Appointment of Investigator
- Re-Balancing the Express Entry System – IRCC puts the focus on human capital, skills and experience
- Landon Young named to the Best Lawyers in Canada 2017 list
- Supreme Court Decision May Protect Defendants Charged with OHSA Offences from Unreasonable Delay
- AODA Customer Service Standard Changed July 1
- Court of Appeal Gives Mark-Fabricating Teacher an "F"
- Putting on the Brakes: The Limits of the Common Employer Doctrine
- After the Accident: Pitfalls to Avoid for Employers after Workplace Accidents
- It Takes Two to Tango: Superior Court Rules on Employees’ Duty to Facilitate in the Accommodation Process
- Ryan Conlin Speaking on OHS in the Daily Commercial News
- More Time, More Money: New, Unique Employment Standards Act Leaves Proposed by Legislature
- Fixed-Term Fiasco: Employee Profits off of Termination of Term Contract
- Human Rights Tribunal Rules on Family Status Protection for Infrequent and Unexpected Childcare Obligations
- Employer Liable for Disclosure of Employee Confidential Medical and Employment Information
- Yes, the AODA Applies to Construction Employers
- Federal Court of Appeal Rules on When Federal Employers Must Appoint a Workplace Violence Investigator
- New Protections for Children in the Entertainment Industry
- Tip Protection for Servers – New Changes to the ESA
- DNF: Waiver Fails to Protect Self-Insured Employer from Injured Employee’s Court Action
- New Limits on Criminal Records Checks
- Probationary Panacea: Divisional Court Affirms Rights of Employers to Dismiss Probationary Employees without Reasonable Notice
- Ryan Conlin Speaks to the National Post re Metron
- Judge Imposes Jail Time on Metron Construction Site Supervisor
- Jumping to Conclusions Proves Costly for Employer
- accessibility for ontarians with disabilities act
- class actions
- constitutional law
- construction labour relations
- constructive dismissal
- disability benefits
- employment insurance
- employment law
- employment litigation
- employment standards
- fiduciary duties
- first nations
- general litigation
- human rights
- labour law
- labour relations
- occupational health and safety
- stringer llp
- stringer llp announcements
- workers' compensation
- wrongful dismissal litigation