Canadian Human Rights Commission has Primary Jurisdiction for Federal Discrimination Complaints: FCA

When an unjust dismissal complaint under the Canada Labour Code alleges discrimination, does the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the “CIRB”) have jurisdiction to hear it, or must the employee proceed through the Canadian Human Rights Commission instead?

In Kaseke v. Toronto Dominion Bank, 2025 FCA 8, the Federal Court of Appeal affirmed an earlier decision of the CIRB, which held that if the facts giving rise to an unjust dismissal complaint could also ground a human rights complaint, paragraph 242(3.1)(b) of the Canada Labour Code bars the CIRB from hearing it, because the Canadian Human Rights Act provides another procedure for redress. The CIRB may only hear the matter if the CHRC first refers the complaint back.

Where Are We Now? Contractual Termination Provisions Five Years Post-Waksdale.

What is the state of the law of Ontario on termination clauses as of Labour Day 2025?

To say that the Ontario courts’ approach to contractual termination clauses has been a bit of a whirlwind over the last five years might be an understatement. Let’s recall that Waksdale, now nearly as ubiquitous as Bardal or Machtinger, was only released in August of 2020.

That is why I am grateful for Justice Ira G. Parghi’s reasons for decision in Chan v. NYX Capital Corp., 2025 ONSC 4561 (CanLII). Justice Parghi’s reasons provide a textbook summary of the state of the law on termination clauses in Ontario, which I summarize in this post.

When a Mistake Becomes Repudiation: The Risk of Conditioning Termination Pay

An employer’s mistake as to its legal obligations can invalidate a contractual termination provision.

In Perretta v. Rand A Technology Corporation, 2021 ONSC 2111 (CanLII), Justice Andrew A. Sanfilippo held that an employer’s refusal to pay its former employee the two weeks to which she was contractually entitled—unless she first signed a full and final release, constituted a repudiation of the employment contract, thereby entitling her to common-law damages.

Repudiation by Allegation: The Risk of Falsely Alleging Cause

A knowingly false allegation of “cause” can void an otherwise valid termination provision.

In Dixon v British Columbia Transit, [1995] BCJ No 1892 (BC SC), the British Columbia Supreme Court held that an employer could not rely on its contractual termination provision to limit its severance obligation because the contract did not provide for a measure of liquidated damages in the event of wrongful dismissal; the contract only provided for compensation in lieu of notice if dismissal was pursuant to the employer's lawful right to dismiss in the absence of cause.

Employers Cannot Rescind Notices of Termination

Can an employer withdraw a termination of employment after it has been delivered to its employee?

In a series of cases from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, one of which I argued, judges have consistently held that an employer cannot.

Employers May Deduct Statutory Payments from Wrongful Dismissal Damages

When calculating damages for failing to provide reasonable notice of termination, can an employer deduct statutory termination pay and severance already paid to the employee?

The 1996 decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Stevens v. The Globe and Mail, 1996 CanLII 10215 (ON CA), affirmed that the employer is entitled to make such deductions.

Calculation of Damages for Lost Commissions

How is commission income addressed when calculating severance under Ontario employment law?

In Shelp v. GoSecure Inc., 2025 ONSC 49, the Honourable Justice Charles T. Hackland of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sitting in Ottawa affirmed that “it is common practice in the case law for courts to estimate a terminated employee’s commission income based on averaging pre-termination earnings.”

Validity of Arbitration Clauses in Employment Contracts Within Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction: ONCA

Can an employment contract in Ontario legally prohibit someone from suing for wrongful dismissal? Can your employer require you to “arbitrate” your case rather than allowing you to use the public court system?

In Irwin v. Protiviti, 2022 ONCA 533, Ontario’s top court held that arbitration clauses in employment agreements are not automatically “illegal” and that questions about any particular arbitration provision are to presumptively be resolved by an arbitrator, not the courts.

I asked AI to Generate Pictures of Lawyers as Animals

I asked DALL-E, ChatGPT’s image generator, to depict various lawyers as animals and then to explain what caused it to choose the animal selected. Here are the results.

Employment Lawyers as the Fox

Of course I had to start with employment lawyers. DALL-E depicts employment lawyers as foxes. Here its explanation:

Fast-Tracking Wrongful Dismissal Claims: How Employers Can Benefit from Rule 21 Motions

How long will it take and how much will it cost before a judge can dismiss this wrongful dismissal case against me? That is a frequent question of employers who find themselves on the receiving end of a wrongful dismissal action in which the primary legal question is whether the employer’s employment contract legally establishes the employee’s severance entitlement.

In Bertsch v. DatastealthInc., 2024 ONSC 5593, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice demonstrated that when the parties make use of the tools the system affords them, the system can work.

As a summary of the chronology of events, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated on June 7, 2024. He filed his statement of claim on July 18, 2024. The employer’s motion to dismiss was heard on October 7, 2024, and the court released its decision on October 8, 2024.

That is how employment law cases should run.

London Isn’t Calling – One Judge’s Discouragement of Judicial Forum Shopping

Is a plaintiff allowed to file its statement of claim in whatever city it finds most convenient, even if that place has no connection to the parties or the claim?

While Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure would appear to permit an action to be commenced in any jurisdiction, not all judges are as welcoming.

In The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. The Other End Inc., 2024 ONSC 5377, the Honourable Justice I.F. Leach had some thoughts on the issue.

Identity of Anonymous Complainants and Whistleblowers May Sometimes Need to Be Disclosed: ONSC

If an employer alleges cause for termination and in support of such allegation it relies on the result of an investigation, then must the employer disclose the identities of the persons who complained about the employee? Does the answer change if the complainants were “whistleblowers”, who were permitted to make anonymous complaints and who were promised confidentiality?

In Jarvis v The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 CanLII 62260 (ON SC), Associate Justice Karen E Jolley held that in the circumstances of this case, “the public interest in the correct outcome of the litigation outweighs any interest in protecting the identity of the complainants and other employees who were interviewed or referenced in the complaints and the investigation report.”

Associate Justice Jolley also commented that, “a promise of confidentiality does not protect the communication from disclosure.” Adding, “in some workplace-related scenarios, confidentiality is not something an employer can or should promise.”

What could go wrong in a world where the law not only requires employers to investigate incidents and complaints of workplace harassment, but to also inform the parties in writing of the results of the investigation and of any corrective action that has been taken or that will be taken as a result of the investigation? (See Occupational Health and Safety Act at section 32.0.7)

And what of this comment from the court, “An employer that intends to rely on complaints made to it about another employee to support a termination for cause will need to think carefully before assuring complainants that their complaints can and will be kept confidential.” Does that not somewhat contradict the statutory obligation at paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of section 32.0.6 of OHSA, which provides that, the program developed and maintained by an employer to implement its policy with respect to workplace harassment shall “set out how information obtained about an incident or complaint of workplace harassment, including identifying information about any individuals involved, will not be disclosed unless the disclosure is necessary for the purposes of investigating or taking corrective action with respect to the incident or complaint, or is otherwise required by law.”

Surely, the knowledge that the complainant’s identity, or at least identifying information, might ultimately need to be disclosed to the subject of the complaint will not have a chilling effect on persons making complaints.

Diagnosable Psychological Injury Not Required for Award of Aggravated Damages: ONCA

Can a ‘little white lie’ about the reason for an employee’s termination of employment result in an award of aggravated damages? What if the employee is unable to demonstrate a diagnosable psychological injury?

In Krmpotic v. Thunder Bay Electronics Limited, 2024 ONCA 332, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that mental distress is a broad concept; it includes a diagnosable psychological condition arising from the manner of dismissal but is not limited to that. In the Court of Appeal’s assessment, “There is a spectrum along which a person can suffer mental distress as a result of the manner of dismissal.”

It just got considerably easier for employees to obtain aggravated damages from the manner of dismissal.

Meritless Implication that Former Employee was Involved in Murder Results in $100,000 in Aggravated and Punitive Damages

Can an employee be awarded aggravated damages for his employer’s bad behaviour if that bad behaviour precedes his termination?

While for a long time the prevailing wisdom was that aggravated and punitive damages could only be awarded for behaviour “during the course of dismissal”- which are the words used by the Supreme Court of Canada in Wallace- recent case law seems to suggest that such timing may not be necessary.

For example, in Koshman v. Controlex Corporation, 2023 ONSC 7045, the Honourable Justice Charles T. Hackland of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the employer’s bad behaviour in the two months preceding an employee’s summary dismissal could substantiate an award of aggravated damages.

And, if that wasn’t enough of a hook to get you to keep reading, what if I mentioned that the employer’s poor behaviour included its telling clients that it believed that the former employee may be implicated in murdering the company’s founder?

New Client Policy Results in Frustration of Employment

If you are an employer in the service industry, and your largest client introduces a new rule or policy that imposes new requirements on your employees, and if one of your employees refuses to comply with that new rule or policy, has the employee’s contract of employment been “frustrated” or must the employer allege that it has “cause” for termination?

In Croke v. VuPoint System Ltd, 2024 ONCA 354 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a decision in which it was found that an employee’s refusal to comply with his employer’s client’s rule requiring proof of vaccination against Covid-19 was a frustration of contract.

This is case about Covid-19 vaccination, which is not about Covid-19.

Employers Do Not Have the Right to Terminate Employees "At Any Time"

Do Ontario employers have the right to terminate an employee’s employment “at any time” and in their “sole discretion”?

In Dufault v. The Corporation of the Township of Ignace, 2024 ONSC 1029, the Honourable Madam Justice H. M Pierce of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sitting at Thunder Bay held that they do not.

No Implied Term in Employment for Layoff for COVID State of Emergency

By now one might have thought that the issue of whether an employer had the legal right to layoff an employee in the face of the COVID 19 pandemic would have been resolved. And yet in the case of Webb v. SDT North America, 2023 ONSC 7170, heard June 12, 2023, with further written submissions delivered September 8, 2023, and September 29, 2023, with reasons for decision released on December 19, 2023, the court was once again asked the question of whether a “COVID layoff” constituted as dismissal.

Redefining My Narrative: Collaborating with ChatGPT to Craft My Legal Journey

I asked ChatGPT 4 to read my existing bios and then ask me 20 questions, here is what it produced:

As an experienced trial lawyer and a trusted advisor in employment law and commercial disputes, my career has been a journey of growth and adaptation. My time as the Director of Litigation & Employment for a publicly listed corporation was pivotal, where I focused on preventing disputes and advocating globally for my clients.

In private practice, my expertise spans all aspects of employment law, including wrongful dismissal, workplace harassment, and human rights. I've counseled clients through mergers, acquisitions, and dispositions, always aiming for quick and favorable resolutions.

I have appeared before numerous courts and administrative boards, including the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, and managed litigation before foreign bodies like the United States District Court and the British Columbia Supreme Court. My work extends to international tribunals like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

As the publisher of "Labour Pains," I take pride in the blog's recognition and its influence on employment law, including its citation by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The blog's induction into the Canadian Law Blog Hall of Fame is a testament to its impact.

My educational background from York University and the University of Ottawa laid the foundation for my legal career, and my calling to the Ontario Bar in 2008 marked the beginning of my professional journey.

My approach to law is knowledge-led, focusing on the current state and objectives of the law, and advocating for necessary changes. I am driven by the belief in being open to change, as life and career paths are non-linear.

Outside my professional life, I'm inquisitive, constantly seeking to learn more about the world. This thirst for knowledge keeps me balanced and makes me a more effective advocate.

As I look to the future, I aim to expand my adjudicative work and consider the possibility of a judicial appointment. My journey in law is one of continuous learning, adaptability, and a commitment to justice and fairness.

I Asked ChatGPT to Summarize the Court’s Decision in Bardal v Globe and Mail. This is What Happened.

Unless one has been living under a rock, it would be hard to have missed the discussion concerning ChatGPT.

But until recently, I had not experimented with it. Two days ago, I finally gave in and gave it a shot. After playing around with it, I decided to see what would happen if I tried to use it to summarize a court decision for this blog.

I elected to start with a well-known and short decision: The 1960 decision of the Ontario High Court in Bardal v. Globe, 1960 CanLII 294 (ON SC).

Here is what happened.

Province of Ontario Grants Province’s Publicly Assisted Post-Secondary Institutions Unfettered Discretion to Address Sexual Misconduct; Bans NDAs

If an employee of one of Ontario’ publicly-assisted universities or colleges of applied arts and technology commits an act of sexual misconduct toward a student of an institution, what penalty should or must apply?

Owing to a recent change in the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act, the answer is entirely within the hands of the institution with some very serious consequences, including permanent exclusion from being re-employed by the dismissing institution.

Moreover, the law provides that, subject to the rights of the student to request otherwise, an agreement between an institution and any person, including a collective agreement or an agreement settling existing or contemplated litigation, shall not contain any term that, directly or indirectly, prohibits the institution or any person related to the institution from disclosing that an allegation or complaint has been made that an employee of the institution committed an act of sexual misconduct toward a student of the institution.

Additionally, the law provides that the new rules apply despite “any contrary term in an employment contract or collective agreement, or any contrary rule or principle of common law or equity” specifically including, but not limited to subsection 48 (17) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and subsection 14 (17) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008.