Ontario Court of Justice Dismisses OHSA Charges Where Worker’s Unauthorized Act Led to Injury

In a recent decision, R. v. ABS Machining Inc., the Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) charges against an employer where the injured worker’s unexpected and unauthorized act led to his injury. The decision confirms that employers can succeed in defending charges on the basis of due diligence when workers…

Employer Investigations Held to Standard of Reasonableness, not Correctness or Perfection

In a recent decision, Zambito v. LIUNA Local 183, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“Tribunal”) provided some useful guidance on internal employer investigations. It reiterated that while it is extremely important for employers to respond seriously and promptly to all allegations of discrimination and harassment, they will be not be held to a standard of…

Federal Court Confirms “Family Status” Applies to Mother-in-Law

In Canada (Attorney-General) v. Hicks, the Federal Court held that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (“CHRT”) did not err when it found that Human Resources and Services Development Canada (“HRSDC”) discriminated against Mr. Hicks in refusing to approve expenses associated with maintaining temporary dual residences after a relocation from Halifax to Ottawa. After Mr. Hicks…

Significant Damages Awarded Against Employer for Sexual Harassment of Temporary Foreign Workers

In a recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”), Vice-Chair Mark Hart imposed a significant damages award against corporate respondent Presteve Foods Ltd. and its directing mind, Jose Pratas (“the personal respondent”). In O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods Ltd., two Applicants, O.P.T. and M.P.T., alleged that the personal respondent had engaged in…

BCCA Affirms Order Requiring Google to Render Domains Unsearchable

Last Thursday, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia issued an important decision in Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Google Inc. about the power of a domestic court to make orders against non-party, internet “intermediaries” – in this case, search engine provider Google. The matter involved an order made to help a network hardware manufacturer enforce…

Courts Differ on Termination Provisions and Need for Future Compliance with ESA

Over the last few years, courts have been reluctant to enforce different “ESA only” termination provisions due to ambiguity. However, not all judges have taken the same position with respect to what constitutes an ambiguous termination provision. The following two cases offer differing views on termination provisions in employment contracts and future compliance with the…

(Yet Another) Ambiguous “ESA-only” Termination Provision Unenforceable

Another “ESA-only” termination provision in an employment contract has been found unenforceable by the Ontario Superior Court. In Howard v Benson Group, the Court decided that the termination provision providing only Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) minimum entitlements was ambiguous; therefore, the common law applied and the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable notice of termination….