PUBLICATIONS

The court found that the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed from her employment because a provision contained in her employment agreement...

Employers must be wary of what compensation long-term employees are entitled to in lieu of notice when laid off during times of economic uncertainty. The entitled compensation will likely not be the statutory minimum in applicable provincial and federal employment legislation. In Williams v. Air Canada, 2022 ONSC 6616, the Ontario Superior Court granted summary judgment in favour of an Air Canada employee who was dismissed without cause, awarding $132,772.33 in lieu of a 24-month notice period.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the courts were unable to hold jury trials for many civil claims, particularly MVA and tort cases. This ended in May 2022, and jury trials for civil cases have since resumed. During this time, many decisions proceeded before only a judge. This paper will outline the major differences between judge-alone and jury trials.

In Antchipalovskaia v. Guestlogix Inc.,1 released on June 9, 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that in cases where an employee is terminated and subsequently rehired at the time of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA"), the employee's prior period of employment is relevant in determining what notice period the employee is entitled to.

A non-competition clause is a type of restrictive covenant. It typically purports to preclude an employee from engaging in work that competes with its former employer's business for a period of time after the employment relationship ends.

First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.

Recently in Reotech Construction Ltd. v. Snider, 2022 BCSC 317 the BC Supreme Court determined that CERB payments should be deducted from an ex-employee's damage award for wrongful dismissal.

On appeal to the British Columbia Supreme Court, the court relied on two judicial precedents to determine the trial judge had erred...

In order to protect limitation periods, especially in cases where liability is yet to be determined, there is an obligation on counsel to identify, name, and pursue all parties who may be liable to the plaintiff(s). However, as the discovery process begins, parties often become aware that they have added in a party that will bear no liability to the plaintiff(s). Often, parties are able to consent to a dismissal or discontinuance without costs; however, there are cases in which defendant(s) will not go out without costs. In these cases, parties can move for a ruling under Rule 23.05...

Many employers are beginning to implement mandatory vaccination policies in their workplaces. In doing so, they must balance the risks to their businesses and employees of a workplace outbreak of COVID-19 versus employees' human and contractual rights, along with privacy concerns.

The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Eynon v Simplicity Air is a significant decision on punitive damages in Canada. The Court upheld a $150,000 jury award of punitive damages in favour of an employee. This decision warns employers that if those left in charge of the workplace create a culture within the company where employees have little regard for the importance of safety practices in the workplace and engage in highly reprehensible misconduct, they can be held liable for significant punitive damages regardless of an employee's contributory negligence leading up to an accident.

In 1985, Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was introduced to encourage parties to make and accept reasonable offers to settle. This has had the effect of discouraging parties from delaying the judicial process and increasing costs unnecessarily. Rule 49 has had a considerable effect on litigants by virtue of the risk of a large costs award following trial.

To trigger the cost consequences under Rule 49, an offer must meet strict requirements:

The Supreme Court of Canada (“the Court”) overturned the decision made by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, resulting in an award of one million dollars being afforded to Mr. Matthews, a skilled chemist who was constructively dismissed by his employer, Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd. (“Ocean”) without reasonable notice.

On November 20, 2020, Bill 218, entitled “Supporting Ontario's Recovery and Municipal Election Act, 2020” (“the Act”) received Royal Assent.1 The Act provides at section 2(1) that:

No cause of action arises against any person as a direct or indirect result of an individual being or potentially being infected with or exposed to coronavirus (COVID-19) on or after March 17, 2020, as a direct or indirect result of an act or omission of the person if...

Many Canadians felt panic over the last month as the expiry date for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) loomed. As of October 3, 2020, Canadian workers who were relying on the CERB for financial support saw this benefit come to an end.

However, in response to this looming expiry date, the House of Commons sprung in to action on September 29, 2020 to unanimously pass Bill C-4: An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19.

Bill C-4 was also quickly passed by the Senate, and it received Royal Assent on October 2, 2020.

In Ontario, there is a well-established practice of asking jurors to provide reasons for their verdicts. The jury is not absolutely required to provide this information. There is a presumption of integrity regarding general verdicts; simply because the jury did not explain its verdict is not a ground for appeal.

The exception to this presumption arises in professional negligence cases...

In Ontario, s.4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, (“Act”) establishes a two-year limitation period for a claimant to commence an action, which begins to run once the claim is discovered. However, there exists an exception for those claimants that are “incapable” to commence the proceeding.

In this case study, a man suffering from mental illness and psychotic delusions, killed his son and later commenced an action against the drug company...

When it comes to claims for wrongful dismissal, without cause termination provisions have received almost all of the attention in recent years.

However, in the wake of a recent landmark decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario (“ONCA”), employers should now be turning their attention to the other portions of the termination provisions in their non-unionized employees’ contracts.

Amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, courts in Ontario have been working to modify existing online infrastructures and acquire new technologies in order to meet the needs of Ontarians and to maintain the safety of those who work in the courts. In doing so, the Ministry of the Attorney General ("MAG") has recently expanded the Justice Services Online platform and procured "CaseLines" for the use of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The following are some updates around civil matters in the Superior Court of Justice in the Central East Region. Please note they are all subject to change.

You have just been sued for breach of contract by a former business partner.

As you skim through a legal document that sets out a laundry list of your alleged failures and faux pas, a few paragraphs jump out at you. Why does the document make reference to an argument over the design of your company's logo? And why is there commentary on the not-so-secret office romance between two of your employees? As far as you can tell, neither of these issues have anything to do with the contract in dispute.

Amid provincial, federal, and municipal conversations about relaxing COVID-19 restrictions and reopening segments of the economy, businesses have recently been told to start planning and implementing back-to-work procedures and protocols. If you are an employer and are wondering where to start, some important questions for businesses to consider are...

Over the last few weeks, the eligibility criteria to qualify for CERB have been criticized for excluding many Canadians....In response to this criticism, Prime Minister Trudeau announced during his public address on April 15, 2020, that new criteria would be enacted.

After announcing the 75 per cent Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy on March 27, 2020, the Government of Canada announced new eligibility criteria for the Subsidy just days later. Specifically, on March 30, 2020, the Government set out that the Subsidy will be immediately available to non-profits, charities, and businesses of all sizes that have seen a reduction in revenue by at least 30 per cent as a result of COVID-19. Public sector entities are ineligible at this time.

Canadian businesses of all sizes face financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. To support and provide flexibility to these businesses while also sustaining liquidity in key financial markets, the Government of Canada has developed an Economic Response Plan. These measures, set out in the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, passed into law on March 25, 2020.

The recently released Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, Gent v Strone Inc. reiterates the importance of an employee's duty to mitigate damages by accepting an offer of re-employment from his or her former employer after being constructively dismissed.

In the recent decision, Hampton Securities Limited v. Dean, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the detailed trial decision of Justice Koehnen with respect to an employment-related action involving a proprietary trader. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for employers when disclosing the reason(s) for the termination of an employee.

Christina Dean began working with Hampton Securities Limited (“Hampton”) as a propriety trader of securities on March 6, 2008. Her employment ended 13 months later on April 3, 2009. Hampton took the position that Ms. Dean had been terminated for cause for failing to follow trading policies and engaging in unauthorized trading, while Ms. Dean took the position that she had been constructively dismissed.

In English v Manulife Corporation, 2018 ONSC 5135, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered the legal question of whether an employee who has resigned by way of a notice of retirement may later rescind her written notice of retirement.

If an employee has a change of heart and wishes to resile from retirement after formally providing notice, is an employer on the hook for wrongful dismissal if they chose to uphold the notice of resignation?

In Filice v Complex Services Inc., the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a trial judge's decision by significantly lowering the reasonable notice period arising from the constructive dismissal of an employee and finding that punitive damages were not appropriate in the circumstances despite the trial judge awarding $100,000 in punitive damages.

The case has several implications for employees under investigation, both administratively and criminally, and should be considered by all employers and human resource departments country-wide.

To what extent must service technicians warn their customers of particular risks associated with the product they are servicing? After presiding over a seven-day trial on liability alone, Madame Justice S. Gomery grappled with this very question and provided a framework to help answer it in her recent decision in Maxrelco v Lumipro Inc., 2018 ONSC 3638.

This decision explains what factors would trigger the duty to warn and in what circumstances would they attract liability.

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that common interest privilege (“CIP”) is a principle of Canadian law. This principle is unlike solicitor-client privilege, in that communication between counsel and a third party may be considered privileged if the shared information is to benefit both parties, especially with respect to the furtherance of a commercial transaction. The court overturned a Federal Court decision which held that that CIP is not a principle of Canadian law.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently upheld an application judge's decision to deny the mayor and Town of Rainy River relief from the harassment of a local resident in its recent decision, Rainy River (Town) v. Olsen.

In this case, a local resident of the Town Rainy River had an interest in horticulture and town beautification. He began writing to the mayor and council with ideas concerning a variety of issues such as agriculture, gardening, and general community beautification. Unsatisfied with the responses he received, his communications to the mayor and council allegedly grew increasingly abrasive and insulting. On one occasion, he attended the mayor's workplace and verbally harassed her.

Defamation law, mostly conceived in an old-media world, historically balanced one person's right to freedom of speech with another's to not have his or her reputation unfairly attacked. The emergence of social media has made it more difficult to navigate the application of these long-standing principles. Unlike the traditional letter to the editor, comments on social media can be posted instantly, often in the heat of emotion, and many people who post comments do so under the mistaken belief that they will remain anonymous. Social media has the ability to create a false sense of intimacy, as users may mistakenly believe they are only speaking to a small, well-known group of individuals...

In an important decision released June 2, 2017, the Court of Appeal of Ontario considered the novel issue of whether a taxi company is liable for a sexual assault allegedly committed by one of its drivers, absent any fault on its part.

A unanimous Court of Appeal ruled that the taxi company was not vicariously liable, suggesting that not all employers are vicariously liable for the intentional acts of their employees, even when their clientele may find themselves in the most vulnerable of situations.

As physicians become more at ease in prescribing marijuana for medical purposes, it is reasonable to forecast an increase in the number of employees in the workplace with a prescription for the drug. This raises challenges for employers that have a duty to accommodate their "disabled employees" and further conflicts with an employer's desire for a drug-free environment.

Discrimination is a "distinction, whether intentional or not, but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individuals or groups, not imposed on others." Such burdens "withhold or limit access to opportunities, benefits, and advantages available to other members of society.

In Lloyd v. Imperial Parking Ltd, the Court held that "[a] fundamental implied term of any employment relationship is that the employer will treat the employee with civility, decency, respect and dignity."1 The exact standard that the employer must adhere to depends on the particular work environment. If that standard is breached, the employee can make a claim for damages.

The notice period for terminating an employee may be dictated by contract, statute, or common law. 

This article will give a breakdown on the subject of employee termination / dismissal. Along with definitions on just cause, tests for just cause. Detailing dismissal without cause, mitigation, notice requirement, constructive dismissal, workplace harassment, with a discussion on toxic work environments.

Whether or not expressly mentioned in the employment contract, all employees (and employers) have the following fundamental obligations. 

Employment Law articles handled in 6 parts: Terminology, Obligations, Termination, Notice, Torts, Human Rights. Part 1 - Terminology, for example Contract, indefinite vs. fixed vs. Independent. Contract OF Services vs. Contract FOR Services, etc.

Michael J. Fox is a well-known Canadian comedic actor probably best known for the "Back to the Future" movie trilogy and other successful small screen comedies. In medical circles, he is also known for having Parkinson's disease and as a spokesperson for Parkinson's disease research. But Michael's Parkinson's is a little different. He was a member of a British Columbia production crew in the 1970's. Several of that crew went on to develop Parkinsons at a young age. The statistical probability of a number of persons, or a cluster, in the one production crew developing Parkinson's was very small. Clusters "suggest" an environmental agent at work – whether it is scientifically provable or not.

In Merritt v. Tigercat Industries, 2016 ONSC 1214, the Honourable Justice D.J. Gordon ruled that an employer was not justified in terminating its employee for cause who had, among other things, been charged criminally with two counts of sexual assault against a minor. Justice Gordon granted the plaintiff employee summary judgment in the action and awarded him damages amounting to 10 months' pay in lieu of reasonable notice.

Are there ANY limits on an employer firing an employee during the initial probation period?

The Divisional Court recently weighed in on this evolving issue inNagribianko v Select Wine Merchants Ltd., 2016 ONSC 490 (Div. Ct.).

Nagribianko is a significant decision addressing the conflicting rights of employers and employees during probation periods.

The recent judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Holland v. Hostopia.com Inc., 2015 ONCA 762, sheds light on the (in)ability of employers to alter employment contracts after an employee has already commenced employment.

Employment practices liability (EPL) coverage protect employers from a variety of actions brought by employees, including wrongful dismissal, sexual harassment, accommodation, discrimination, negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of duty of good faith actions. This paper will examine cases that demonstrate the potential consequences of failing to have an EPL policy in place.

Given that human rights judges can make any award apart from legal fees to remedy discrimination, the possibility of an employee bringing a claim before the Human Rights Tribunal is an important reason for employers to have employment practices liability (EPL) coverage. Some of the available remedies at the Human Rights Tribunal are mandatory reinstatement with back pay, general damages for discrimination, wage loss recovery, forced sensitivity courses, and human rights training. This paper will examine Human Rights Tribunal cases that emphasize the importance of EPL coverage.

Some employers do not see the value in executing employment contracts. However, without termination clauses which limit an employee's entitlements upon termination without cause, damages awarded can be significant. Long gone is the traditional common law "rule of thumb" of one month's notice per year of service. The notice period can be dramatically extended by the court when weighing various factors.

Given that employers have an implied contractual right to dismiss a probationary employee without notice and without giving reasons, many employers believe that they are immune from claims brought against them after terminating an employee within his or her probationary period. Unfortunately for employers, this is not the case. Despite the existence of probationary periods, there are many limitations facing employers who wish to fire their probationary employees. It is crucial that employers understand these limitations in order to prevent claims from being brought against them.

Today the Ontario Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision inMoore v. Getahun, dealing with significant issues in relation to the preparation and use of expert witness reports at trial, including the scope of permissible communications between counsel and expert witnesses.

In a recent Human Rights Tribunal decision, the Applicant, Timothy Pritchard, filed an Application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability.

The Applicant was employed as Director of Professional Services with the Commissionaires. After the Applicant advised his employer that he would be having hip replacement surgery and would subsequently require 8 to 12 weeks off of work for recovery, approximately one month later and four days prior to his scheduled surgery, the Applicant was advised that his employment was terminated. The Applicant believed “the respondents did not want to pay him during his sick time and terminated his employment as a cost saving measure”...  

On June 30, 2008, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006 came into full force in the Province of Ontario. The amended Human Rights Code (the “Code”) sought to address numerous shortcomings of the prior human rights enforcement system.

Over the course of the last five years, there have been some successes, particularly with respect to efficiency. For cases that proceed to a full hearing on the merits, it now takes, on average, 16.5 months from the initial application filing date to get to the first hearing date. Prior to the amendments, it took, on average 47.6 months to get to a Tribunal hearing. Also, in 2011-2012, for the first time, the Tribunal was able to close more cases than it opened. This trend has continued in early 2012-2013.

While the new Code strived to create a more efficient and effective forum in which to deal with discrimination complaints, it has created new challenges for respondents, the vast majority of which are employers, including the following...

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) recently considered the extent to which employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy over personal files kept on employer-issued laptops. What is a reasonable expectation of privacy and what are the implications for private employers?

New Anti-Spam Legislation will likely come into force by the end of 2013. Canadian businesses should become familiar with this law and the impact it will have on the conduct of their employees, who act as agents of their organization. Read up on what the law will prohibit, maximum fines, and what it means for your business.

The rise of social media has dramatically changed the way in which information is acquired and used in the workplace. Social media includes forms of electronic communication through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content. This includes Facebook, blogs, LinkedIn, and Twitter. These sites can be used to develop social and professional contacts, among other things.

While users of social media can adjust the privacy settings for their profiles on social media sites like Facebook so that only certain other users can access the content, this does not mean that the content is necessarily 'private'. In fact, the courts have noted that Facebook users enjoy a relatively low expectation of privacy when they post material on the site. 

On February 7, 2013, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in Blue Mountain Resorts Limited v. Ontario (Labour), 2013 ONCA 75. This case involved the unfortunate death of a guest while swimming in an unattended indoor pool at Blue Mountain Resorts on Christmas Eve, 2007.

The primary issue on appeal was whether Blue Mountain was required to report the death to the Ministry of Labour on the basis that it was a "death or critical injury incurred by a person at a workplace".

The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a trial judge's finding of dismissal with just cause, concluding that the decision was based on a contextual approach that analyzed the entire factual record. The decision warns employees to be mindful of their language when criticizing their employers among other things. Read the full case... 

It is well established that employees who are subject to indefinite term contracts are required to mitigate their damages by searching for alternate employment upon termination of their employment contract. However, in Bowes v. Goss (cite), a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, the court ruled that employees subject to a fixed term contract will not be subject to the same requirement, even where the employment contract between the parties is silent on the duty to mitigate...

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) came into force in 2005 with the goal of making Ontario completely accessible for persons with disabilities by January 2025. The AODA mandates the creation of standard development committees in five general areas: Customer Service, Transportation, Employment, Information and Communication and Built Environment.

To date, only the Customer Service Standard has been enacted, with the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service Regulation (CSS) coming into force on January 1, 2008. The CSS sets out the requirements for ensuring that providers of goods and services in Ontario have policies in place that accommodate the needs of customers with disabilities.

Starting on January 1, 2012, almost all businesses operating in Ontario will be required to comply with the CSS. The CSS applies to: