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.