What happens when ambiguous facts get resolved via summary judgment and then appealed? One gets decisions like Ariss v. NORR Limited Architects & Engineers, 2019 ONCA 449, which unfortunately add more confusion to the law of termination than clarity.
Does the fact that an assault occurs in the workplace automatically trigger the protections of subsection 50(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act?
In a case involving a fight at a male strip club, Mazen Jamal Chams Eddin v 938088 Ontario Limited, 2019 CanLII 37953 (ON LRB), Ontario Labour Relations Board Alternate Chair Matthew R. Wilson held that it did not.
Does the failure to respond to a request for a workplace harassment investigation warrant an award of aggravated damages, where the employee is later terminated for complaining about such harassment?
In Bassanese v. German Canadian News Company Limited et al., 2019 ONSC 1343 (CanLII), the Honourable Justice Lorne Sossin of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that it does.
Does the tort of “harassment” exist at Ontario law? And, if not, is it time for Ontario’s court to recognize the existence of such tort? The answer to both of those questions, as provided by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 205, is “no.”
What sort of consideration is required for an employer to make fundamental changes to the terms of an employee’s employment agreement?
In the case of Lancia v. Park Dentistry, 2018 ONSC 751, the Honourable Justice Andrew J. Goodman of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice confirmed the longstanding legal principle that a “peppercorn” will do. The court also confirmed that consideration for a new agreement is not required where the employer provides reasonable notice of the termination of the existing agreement.
