Is overstating one’s credentials as a salesperson and then failing to complete a single sale of the employer’s wares within 40 days of commencing employment “just cause” to terminate an employee’s employment? As infuriating as it may sound to some employers, according to a decision from the Provincial Court of British Columbia, Lura v. Jazz Forest Products (2004) Ltd., 2014 BCPC 247 (CanLII), the answer is “no, it is not just cause.”
Is it be ‘illegal’ to ask someone in a job interview whether he or she smokes cigarettes?
While the answer remains unclear, there is a compelling argument that the answer may be yes, in some cases.
Sandra McDonald’s legal saga against the Embassy of the United States at Ottawa is a long and interesting story. On July 17, 2012, Ms. McDonald, a former employee of the embassy, obtained default judgment in the amount of approximately $250,000.00 against her ex-employer after it failed to defend her wrongful dismissal case.
The judgment received a fair amount of media attention at the time. Although, even then, at least one Ottawa employment lawyer was sceptical; telling the Toronto Star , “Good luck to her. The U.S. Treasury is already in debt to the tune of $13 trillion.”
Less well publicized is what has happened since. As expected, Ms. McDonald has not seen her money. However, rather than simply ignore the judgment, the US Embassy has, in fact, responded to the case.
At the end of 2013, this blog proclaimed the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in Fair v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2013 HRTO 440, as the number one case in Ontario employment law for that year. At the end of September 2014, the Tribunal’s decision was upheld by a three-judge bench of the Ontario Divisional Court: 2014 ONSC 2411.
While one has to assume that this case is still yet far from over, the purpose of this post is to consider the decision of the Divisional Court with respect to this matter.
From 2000-2006, there was a television program called “Malcolm in the Middle.” The show was called as much because the lead subject was the middle child of three: Malcolm. The theme song for the show ended with the line “life is unfair.” But is life truly unfair for those caught in the middle?
The purpose of this post is to consider the middle category of employment; those who are neither true employees but are not exactly independent contractors either: the intermediate position of “dependent contractor”.
As this post will hopefully demonstrate life is not always unfair to those who find themselves ‘in the middle.’
How much medical evidence must a party seeking damages for mental stress caused by the manner of his or her dismissal from employment, i.e. moral damages or “Wallace” damages, lead at trial in order to receive an award of the same? As with most answers in law, it would appear that the answer is “it depends.” In a recent ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sitting at Ottawa, El-Hawary v. 1202827 Ontario Inc, 2014 ONSC 5265 (CanLII), the Honourable Justice Timothy Ray held that moral damages were not appropriate without medical evidence as to the cause of the plaintiff’s suffering.
The modern English language is a powerful tool. However, it also has its challenges; synonyms, homonyms, and inexplicable exceptions to rules. (For example, try explaining to someone why the plural of moose is moose, goose is geese, and mouse is mice.) In the employment law context, the word that is most often the source of confusion and consternation is “contract.”
The purpose of this post is to look at the differences between:
Those terms often get commingled in everyday conversation, leading to incorrect assumptions and the aforementioned confusion and frustration. Therefore, as best as one can, given the limitations of the written word, here is a summary of the ways in which the law uses “contract.”
Many people who get fired while pregnant, on maternity or disability leave assume that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) is the logical place to turn to grieve their case. However, several recent decisions from both the HRTO itself and the Ontario courts demonstrate that that assumption may be misplaced.
While this blog has previously looked at other cases on this topic (see e.g. Human Rights Tribunal Not The Place To Ask For Severance) this post will consider a decision of the HRTO concerning an employee fired while pregnant.
How can an employer make fundamental changes to an employee’s employment? Sometimes an employer will need to make a fundamental change to the terms of an employee’s employment, this may include changing the number of hours that an employee works, the times during which an employee will work, the position that the employee will hold, or the amount of money that the employee may receive.
While the easiest way to change the terms of an employee’s employment is to get the employee to agree, not all employees will be willing to do so. In those cases, employers will need to ensure that they follow the law concerning unilateral fundamental changes.
If an employee provides notice of his intention to resign on a future date, can his employer legally terminate his employment (i.e. fire him) before that date and not pay him? In a case concerning Quebec labour laws, Quebec (Commission des normes du travail) v. Asphalte Desjardins inc., 2014 SCC 51 (CanLII), the Supreme Court of Canada has said “non”.
Can an employer refuse to pay out a severance package after it offers it to an employee and the employee agrees to accept it? That was essentially the question that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to resolve in the case of Dennis v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, 2014 ONSC 3882 (CanLII).
According to the Honourable Justice Brian P. O’Marra, a deal is a deal.
Summary judgment remains an effective and appropriate means for the resolution of wrongful dismissal cases. However, as the recently decided case of Beatty v. Best Theratronics Ltd., 2014 ONSC 3376 (CanLII) demonstrates, not all aspects of such cases are amenable to summary disposition.
“Can my employer…” those three little words are the most common start to any question asked of an employment lawyer by a worker. “Can we” is the most common start to questions asked of an employment lawyer by management. The purpose of this post is to address the issue of what employers can do and what am employee’s rights and response can be.
Does the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) have the legal ability (“jurisdiction”) to award severance pay? According to a recent decision from the Divisional Court (a branch of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and a type of court of appeal), Campbell v. Revera Retirement LP, 2014 ONSC 3233 (CanLII), the answer is that it is probably best to look elsewhere.
The case is an important reminder to potential plaintiffs to pick the proper venue for advancing one’s case.
Can an employer be held legally responsible if one of its employees deliberately invades upon the privacy of the employer’s customers? That question was one of the key issues in the recently decided class action certification motion in Evans v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, 2014 ONSC 2135 (CanLII).
The case involves a class action proceeding against the Bank of Nova Scotia and one of its former employees for breaching the privacy of the Bank’s customers.
The case was filed in Ottawa and the certification motion was decided by the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert Smith of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, sitting at Ottawa.
Sean Bawden, editor and primary author of this blog, formerly worked with plaintiff’s counsel and assisted in the formative stages of the case before transferring to Kelly Santini.
While the court did not expressly say that the answer to the question raised at the start of this post was “yes,” it did expressly refuse to say that the answer to the question is “no.”
The reasons for decision in the recently released case of Paquette c. Quadraspec Inc., 2014 ONCS 2431 (CanLII) are a necessary read for any Ontario employment lawyer.
In his reasons for decision, the Honourable Justice Paul Kane of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sitting in Ottawa, challenges recent decisions from the Ontario courts on the issues of both contractual termination provisions and statutory severance.
The only catch? The decision is en français.
In a decision that is sure to be relied upon, scrutinized and judicially reviewed, the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”) has found that the prohibition against claims by workers for mental stress to be unconstitutional.
Accordingly, in the case considered below, the WSIAT declined to apply subsections 13(4) and 13(5) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, the result of which being that an employee who made a claim to the WSIB for benefits following years of workplace harassment might actually receive WSIB benefits.
How much weight are judges to give other wrongful dismissal decisions? According to a recent decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, while other decisions from the same level of court can be persuasive, they are not binding. The principle of stare decisis requires that courts render decisions that are consistent with the previous decisions of higher courts.
How long do you have to sue an insurance company after they deny you long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits? According to a now-reversed decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, if the benefits are provided as part of a group benefits plan, as most employee benefits are, it can be as little time as the insurance company says.
In a decision released in March of 2014, Kassburg v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2014 ONSC 1523 (CanLII), the Honourable Justice M. Gregory Ellies of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that a group policy of insurance, issued by an insurance company to an employer, was a “business agreement” under the law and accordingly the usual limitation period governing such policies of insurance did might not apply.
However, on December 29, 2014, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed Justice Ellies' decision, finding that such policies of insurance are not "business agreements" and that the time limit applicable to such claims is two years from the date such claims are "discovered." For a summary of the Court of Appeal's decision see: Court of Appeal says Group LTD Policies not "Business Agreements".
In a decision released earlier this week, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reduced an award of punitive damages against a Wal-Mart manager from $150,000 to $10,000, and against Wal-Mart itself from $1,000,000 to $100,000. In the same decision, however, the court upheld the award of $100,000 in damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering against the manager, and the award of $200,000 in aggravated damages against Wal-Mart.
