Is There a Duty on Employers to Remain Profitable?

A provocative question was asked this week: does an employer owe its employees a duty to remain profitable? That was the question that the Honourable Justice Edward Morgan of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to answer in the recently decided case of Lochran v. Duro-Test Canada Co., 2013 ONSC 706 (CanLII). Justice Morgan’s answer was no, it does not.

Breaking Cardinal Rule Not Just Cause

The opening words of the trial judge’s reasons for decision in Plester v. Polyone Canada Inc., 2011 ONSC 6068 (CanLII), affirmed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario earlier this week (2013 ONCA 47 (CanLII)) might leave some employers with the impression that the case would be one where the court would find just cause for dismissal: “Mr. Plester made a serious mistake at work.” Those impressions would be mistaken.

In a decision released in late November 2011 and affirmed on appeal on January 28^th of this year, the Honourable Justice Bonnie J. Wein held that the breaking of an employer’s “Cardinal rule” was not just cause for dismissal.

Limitation Period Applicable to a Claim for Indemnification

What is the limitation period applicable to a claim for indemnification, where the right to indemnification is contained within an employment contract? According to a recent decision from the Honourable Justice Heidi Polowin, Canaccord Capital Corporation v. Roscoe, 2012 ONSC 5714 (CanLII), two years from the date upon which the employer is found liable to a third-party plaintiff.

[EDIT: The Superior Court decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal for Ontario on June 7, 2013. For a summary of that decision see: Employers Must Sue for Indemnification Within Two Years: ONCA.]

The case raises the issue of the rights of third parties and the ability to add third parties after the expiry of limitation dates, especially those set out in section 18 of the 2002 Limitations Act.

Being Reprimanded for Having a Disability Stinks

Can you be fired for farting? The question may sound childish and silly, but the answer can be serious.

Are New Parents Entitled to Accommodation?

Do employers owe a duty to accommodate parents returning from parental leave?

School District Learns Lesson in Accommodation

The duty to accommodate can be one of the most frustrating and confusing issues for employers. The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision, Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 (CanLII) offers some guidance on scope of the duty to accommodate, particularly where that accommodation comes at a significant cost.

Too Attractive for Employment

Can you legally fire an employee for being ‘too attractive?’ If you’re an employer in Iowa it would appear that the answer is yes.

Following on the heels of Debrahlee Lorenzana and Lauren Odes, Melissa Nelson becomes the latest victim of being “too attractive” for employment.