Lack of Clear Warning Voids Termination Provision

Must an employer provide its employees with a clear warning that it intends to provide no more than the minimum amount of notice prescribed by the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in order to create a legally binding employment contract?

Does the failure to provide a clear warning to an employee that her employment may be terminated upon the provision of no more than the minimum amount of notice prescribed by the Employment Standards Act, 2000 create an ambiguity voiding the contractual termination provision?

In a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sitting at Ottawa, released February 6, 2018, Bergeron v. Movati Athletic (Group) Inc., 2018 ONSC 885, the Honourable Justice Michelle O’Bonsawin said that the answer to those questions is “yes.”

Family Day in Ontario - Why Some Employees Don’t Have the Day Off

Why is my daycare closed if I have to go to work? Perhaps nowhere else in Ontario is the effect federalism felt more acutely than in Ottawa. According to statistics from the City of Ottawa, a full 18.2% of the city’s GDP is derived from the federal public service; second only to high tech.

Practically speaking, what this means is that on the third Monday of every February, federal public servants are expected to be at work while their daycares shutter their doors. So what gives?

Workplace Harassment “Arises From” but does not “Relate To” Employment

Does workplace harassment simply “arise from and in the course of” an employee’s employment, or does it actually “relate to” that employment?

That question, as incredibly pedantic as it may appear, was of material consequence to a decision of the Ontario Grievance Settlement Board issued January 23, 2018: OPSEU and Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) (Rosati), Re, 2018 CarswellOnt 1017.

In short, the answer to that question drove the analysis as to whether a claim for workplace harassment was compensable pursuant to the newly revised provisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

Employers May Not Make Changes to Terms of Employment During Working Notice Period

In the 1997 movie “Wag the Dog” the spin doctors hired to get the President re-elected release an ad campaign with the slogan “Never change horses in mid-stream.” That idiom serves as a powerful and important reminder for employers that might seek to change the terms of an employee’s employment during a period of so-called “working notice.”

In a short decision released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Nufrio v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2017 ONCA 948 (CanLII), Ontario’s top court reinforced this principle.

Employers Can No Longer Require Employees to Wear High Heel Shoes – Except in “Entertainment and Advertising Industry”

Can an employer force an employee to wear a shoe with an elevated heel – aka “high heels” – if wearing such shoes is not required for the worker to perform his or her work safely?

As of November 27, 2017, and as a result of the implementation of the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017, S.O. 2017 C.22, formerly Bill 148, the answer to that question is “no” - unless you work in the “entertainment and advertising industry”.