You Can’t Do That on The Internet

Twenty or so years ago there was a television show called “You Can’t Do That on Television.” A frequent question emerging in employment law is what an employee can and cannot do on the internet.

Employer Cannot Dismiss CLC Employees Absent Due to Workplace Injury

(c) istock/davidmariuz

In an earlier post, I commented on the effect of O.Reg 288/01 on the doctrine of "frustration" with respect to employment contracts governed by the Ontario law. However, not all employees who work in Ontario are governed by the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000. However, some people working in Ontario are governed by the Canada Labour Code (the "CLC").

In an Ontario Labour Arbitration Award, Kingsway Transport v Teamsters, Local Union 91 (John Sears Grievance), 2012 CanLII 20111, Arbitrator Lorne Slotnick held that section 239.1 of the CLC forbade an employer from terminating the employment of an employee who had been on disability for 21 years.

E.I. E.I. Oh!

Wrongful dismissal cases can take time to resolve. Even the most efficient case can take six to nine months to resolve . Unfortunately, while the case winds its way through the system bills and other realities do not wait. For some the only option is to collect Employment Insurance (“E.I.”) benefits. The receipt of those benefits can create a bit of challenge when the wrongful dismissal case resolves if people’s minds are not turned to the issue.

The Benefit of Benefits

(c) istock/olm26250

An area too often overlooked in wrongful dismissal cases is that of disability benefits. Often, dismissed employees, who previously participated in group benefit plans, are informed at the time of dismissal that their short and long-term disability benefits will terminate at the end of the “statutory notice period,” typically eight weeks for long-term Ontario employees.

Employees are typically informed that this period of time is as long as the group disability insurer will permit the employee to remain on the plan. But, is that the end of the argument? “No” says Ontario law.

Are Older Employees Entitled to More Severance?

Are older employees entitled to more severance?

While it is often repeated by Ontario employment lawyers that the ‘rough upper limit’ for notice periods is 24 months, baring “exceptional circumstances” (see e.g. Lowndes v. Summit Ford Sales Limited, 2011 ONCA 469), the case of Hussain v. Suzuki (2011), 209 A.C.W.S. (3d) 101 (ON SC) demonstrates that the employee’s advanced age can qualify as “exceptional circumstances” warranting a greater amount of reasonable notice.

Employees’ Rights to Privacy with Work Equipment

Do employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in employer-provided technology?

Although it was a criminal case, the case of R. v. Cole, 2011 ONCA 218, presented an interesting question: Whether a high-school teacher had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of a work computer on which he was entitled to store personal information.

The decision is even more interesting because it was authored by Justice Karakatsanis, now of the Supreme Court of Canada.

That’s How One Makes Fundamental Changes!

In an earlier post I commented on the case of Chandran v. National Bank, 2012 ONCA 205.  In that post I commented that, “the bank’s more tactical move should have been to terminate Mr. Chandran’s employment as a senior manager - on appropriate notice - and then offered him the alternative positions within the bank.  Had proper notice been provided, the bank may have removed the possibility of a suit and its related costs.”

In making that comment I was employing the analysis set out in the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Wronko v. Western Inventory Service Ltd., 2008 ONCA 327.  A recent case from the Ontario Divisional Court, Kafka v.Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2012 ONSC 1035 would appear to affirm that position.