A frequent complaint heard in the practice of an Ontario employer lawyer is that the suddenly unemployed employee has not yet been provided with his or her Record of Employment, the "ROE." Many will ask, "isn't my employer required to give me my record of employment within five days so that I can apply for employment insurance (EI)?" The short answer is that employers are no longer legally required to provide employees with a paper copy of their ROE; a fact often leading to confusion and frustration.
An employment law resource.
Sean Bawden, Partner, Kelly Santini LLP.
sbawden@ottawaemploymentlaw.com | 613.238.6321
Tuesday, 24 September 2013
Saturday, 21 September 2013
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.
Saturday, 7 September 2013
Co-op Student Owed Wages Despite Agreement
Saturday, 24 August 2013
Like a Boss: the Managerial Exception to Overtime Pay under the Ontario Employment Standards Act
Saturday, 17 August 2013
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.
Wednesday, 7 August 2013
What is a Poisoned Workplace?
Sunday, 28 July 2013
Intention Not a Requirement for Discrimination
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.