ONCA Upholds 15-Day Termination Provision - Important Lessons for the Suddenly Unemployed

In a decision that still leaves this employment lawyer scratching his head, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that a termination provision that permitted an employment agreement to be terminated on just 15 days' notice was valid and enforceable.

In its appeal book endorsement in Musoni v. Logitek Technology Ltd., 2013 ONCA 622, the Court of Appeal held:

The employment contract between the appellant and the respondent was clear in providing for 15 days’ notice in order to terminate. The appellant was given pay in lieu of notice with accordance with the agreement, as found by Morgan J. We see no error in Morgan J.’s conclusions. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The above was the entirety of the Court of Appeal's decision. Such a short decision left this author wondering what more could be gleaned from the trial decision. A review of that decision left this author upset that the plaintiff employee had not sought (or followed) professional legal advice.

Judge Orders NFU-O Accredited as GFO

In a decision released October 16, 2013, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, under the pen of the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin, ordered the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal to accredit the National Farmers Union - Ontario as a 'general farm organization' pursuant to the provisions of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, S.O. 1993 c. 21. The full text of the decision can be found here: National Farmers Union - Ontario v. Ontario (Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal), 2013 ONSC 6452.

For those wondering why an employment law blog would consider such a case, there are two reasons: First, yours truly represented the National Farmers Union - Ontario; and second, the court's decision was based on judicial review. Judicial review is commonly used as a check on the decisions made by administrative tribunals such as the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT), and the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), amongst many others. Indeed some of the precedents relied upon by the court were labour and employment cases and the court's decision in this case could be equally applicable in future judicial reviews of labour and employment cases.

Hotel Employee Gets Early Check-out from Ontario Lawsuit

If an employee works in the United States for a multinational corporation with its corporate head office in Ontario, can that employee sue her former employer in the Ontario courts for wrongful dismissal and violations of the Ontario Human Rights Code when she gets fired?

While the typical law answer will always be "it depends," in a decision released earlier this year, Sullivan v. Four Seasons Hotels Limited (2013), 2013 ONSC 4622, 116 OR (3d) 365, the Honourable Justice Sandra Chapnik of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that at least one employee could not.

Caveat Venditor - Non-Competition Agreements in Asset Sales

Can a five-year non-competition agreement be legally enforceable? If it is attached to the sale of a part of your business it can be, says the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the most recent of decisions from the highest court concerning non-competition agreements and restrictive covenants, Payette v. Guay inc., 2013 SCC 45, released September 12, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that non-competition agreements negotiated in the context of a sale are different from non-competition agreements included in a simple employment agreement.

If A Worker Falls in the Forest and No One is Around to See It, Does He Still Get WSIB Benefits?

What happens when an Ontario worker, covered by Ontario's workers' compensation program, gets hurt at work, but no one is around to witness it? Unfortunately, this question is all to relevant as more and more Ontario workers are asked to work alone in potentially dangerous situations.

In a decision released July 2, 2013 by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the "WSIAT"), Decision 570/13, 2013 ONWSIAT 1423 (CanLII), the WSIAT affirmed the approach set-out in Decision 835/11 to deal with circumstantial evidence of proof of a workplace accident.

Ontario Superior Court Awards Human Rights Damages

After years of waiting, the first decision from an Ontario Superior Court judge to award damages pursuant to section 46.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code was published to CanLII on September 12, 2013. Wilson v. Solis Mexican Foods Inc., 2013 ONSC 5799, a decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice A. Duncan Grace concerned a claim for wrongful dismissal damages plus a claim for damages pursuant to the Human Rights Code.

Opportunities Look A Lot Like Hard Work

On September 18, 2013, Andrew Coyne wrote a provocative opinion piece for the National Post on the issue of unpaid internships: "If unpaid internships are exploitation, why don’t the kids just stay home?" In his essay Mr. Coyne advances the thesis that unpaid internships "are the job equivalent of a small-cap growth stock — no dividends, but the promise of heady capital gains in future." Essentially, the argument advanced by Mr. Coyne is that the reason some people elect to take up an unpaid internship is for the opportunities that are opened by so doing and they should be free to do so without interference.

But, Mr. Coyne's position got me thinking: are these internships really an opportunity for career advancement or are they, as others, such as Toronto labour lawyer Andrew Langille, argue, exploitation? Incredibly, I found myself thinking about something actor Ashton Kutcher said at 2013 Teen Choice Awards.

Hard Times: Economic Downturn, Judicial Discretion and the Duty to Mitigate

A few weeks ago this blog afforded an opportunity to an individual looking for work in employment law to write a guest blog post. Perhaps not surprisingly, following that post I was contacted by others in a similar situation looking to be afforded a similar opportunity.

This blog and, more to the point, Sean Bawden, are humbled by the success of this blog and by the request from others to write guest posts for it. Having given the issue some thought, the blog will continue to post articles by those looking for work in the employment law field in Ontario - provided that the posts meet certain quality standards. Whether those posts move to a separate page is an issue that will have to be considered; for now, they will appear on the main page.

What follows, then, is a post written by Paul Willetts on the subject of the duty to mitigate in today's economy. Commentary by this blog will follow and any comments by this blog are added in square brackets.

Co-op Student Owed Wages Despite Agreement

A short decision from the Ontario Labour Relations Board, Sandhu v Brar, 2013 CanLII 43024 (ON LRB) confirmed that even if an employer and employee agree that an unpaid intern will not be paid for his labour, if the work performed looks more like labour than training wages can still be owed to the employee.

Like a Boss: the Managerial Exception to Overtime Pay under the Ontario Employment Standards Act

A short while ago, someone who follows me on Twitter reached out to me looking to ask me questions about practising employment law in Ottawa. Having a rough idea of who this individual was, I agreed to meet him to discuss the market and opportunities that might exist. I was impressed not only by his initiative to reach out to me but by his accomplishments while articling. Accordingly, I advised him that if he took the further initiative to write a guest post for this blog I would post it. Mr. Daniel Pinsky upheld his end of the bargain, so, in upholding my end, below one will find his post, which he titled Like a Boss: the Managerial Exception to Overtime Pay under The Ontario Employment Standards Act.

Nanny's Failure to Supervise Children Not Just Cause for Termination of Employment

(c) istock/Bicho_raro

In a case sure to surprise some working parents, an Ontario Deputy Judge has ruled that the failure of a nanny to supervise a two-year-old child and a four-and-one-half year old child was not just cause for dismissal.

The case was argued in the Ontario Small Claims Court, with the threshold issue being whether the employer parents had just cause for dismissal. In finding that the parents did not have just cause, Deputy Judge Z. Jack C. Prattas held that there was conflicting evidence on the critical point of whether the children were being properly supervised. Deputy Judge Prattas's reasons for decision can be found on CanLII at: Pascua v Khul-Schachter, 2013 CanLII 47860.

What is a Poisoned Workplace?

What is a poisoned workplace under Ontario law? A recent case from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, General Motors of Canada Limited v. Johnson, 2013 ONCA 502, in which a worker's claim for damages for constructive dismissal following allegations of a poisoned work environment was dismissed, provides a good reminder for the legal elements of such a definition.

Intention Not a Requirement for Discrimination

"But I didn't mean to." Those words, often offered in defence of an allegation of discrimination, beg a frequent question in human rights law: is intent a requirement for an infringement of someone's rights? That is to say, must someone intend to infringe someone's right before a violation can happen?

As recently affirmed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in the case of Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396, the answer is no.

If I Reject a Severance Offer Does it Mean I Get Nothing?

(c) istock/pixelheadphoto

If you get fired and your employer offers a severance package what happens if you think, or are told, that the package is not fair or reasonable? The short answer is that you should advise your employer that you are rejecting their offer and want to be paid more. But, as I am often asked, does that mean that the employee may end up getting nothing?

The answer to the question, "If an employee rejects a severance offer will he or she get nothing?", is almost certainly "no."

Ambiguous Term May Invalidate Non-Competition Agreements

Is the term “United States of America” ambiguous? In a decision with serious potential ramifications for employment law, the Honourable Justice Ellen MacDonald has held that it is.

Like some other cases considered by this blog, TD General Insurance Co. v. Baughan, 2013 ONSC 333, is not strictly speaking an employment law case. The case concerned an Application brought by an automobile insurer, TD, for the court's declaration that the United States Virgin Islands is not part of the “United States of America.” In reply, the insured, Baughan, argued that the term “United States of America” is ambiguous.

The case is of relevance for those in the employment law world because it is not uncommon for a non-competition agreement to list the “United States of America” as a geographic area in which a former employee is prohibited from working. If the term is ambiguous, then arguably the term is unenforceable.

How Much Time Do You Have To Consider A Severance Package?

How much time do you have to consider a severance package under Ontario law? The answer can both simple and complex.

The simple answers are that you have as long as your employer gives you and that there is no time limit imposed by the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000. So, on the one hand, if your employer gives you a week, you arguably have a week. But, you can also have more time than what the employer says.

Where the issue arises for most employees who find themselves suddenly unemployed is when employers only give the employee a very short period to consider the offer, say one or two days. The offer usually comes with a time limit and a threat that if the offer is not accepted by the deadline, then the employer will only pay the employee the minimum amount required by law.

Two questions come emerge: What is the reasonable time limit? And can an employer arbitrarily impose any time limits?

What Does it Mean to be a Volunteer under Ontario Employment Law?

What is a "volunteer" under Ontario employment law? The question is more complicated than it might first appear. Most people know what a volunteer is: it is someone who freely gives of their time, usually towards some altruistic purpose. But what is the difference between a "volunteer" and a wrongfully unpaid worker?

Fired After Maternity Leave

An Ontario employer cannot fire an employee while she is on maternity leave simply because she is on maternity leave. Ontario law protects the employee’s position while she is away. But, what happens when an employee who has been on maternity leave returns and is then terminated?

How Much Time Do You Have to Start a Lawsuit for Wrongful Dismissal in Ontario?

How long do you have to start a claim for wrongful dismissal under Ontario law?

While the default (and safe) answer would be two years from the date of dismissal, a 2010 decision from the Ontario Superior Court demonstrates that that may not always be the case.