On June 21, 2019, Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act (Act) passed as amended by the Senate and received Royal Assent. The provisions of this Act come into force on a day to fixed by order of the Governor in Council. As we previously reported, the Act is accessibility legislation which impacts certain federally regulated…
Author: Hicks Morley
“Non-Construction” Employer Deeming Provision under LRA Now in Force
On April 3, 2019, Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2019, received Royal Assent. Among other things, the Bill amends the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (LRA) to deem certain public sector entities as “non-construction” employers to whom the construction provisions of the LRA will not apply. Such entities include municipalities, local housing corporations, social services…
Ontario Health and Safety Regulations Amended
On June 10, 2019, the Ontario government filed a number of amendments to regulations made under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. O. Reg. 186/19 replaces the “Equivalency” provision of Regulation 851 (Industrial Establishments) with a new provision entitled “Alternative methods and materials.” It now requires employers to provide written notice to the joint health…
Ontario Clarifies DB Funding Reforms under the Pension Benefits Act
On May 21, 2019, the Ontario government filed Regulation 105/19 amending Regulation 909 (General Regulation) under the Pension Benefits Act (PBA). The amendments mainly relate to clarifying elements of the defined benefit (DB) funding rules that took effect on May 1, 2018. Many of the new clarifications have been requested by the pension industry over…
Ontario Budget Bill (Bill 100) Passes
As previously reported, on April 11, 2019, the Ontario government released its 2019 Budget and introduced Bill 100, Protecting What Matters Most Act (Budget Measures), 2019. Bill 100 received Royal Assent on May 29, 2019. Of particular interest to employers and human resource professionals are the amendments made to the following statutes: Public Sector Labour…
Appellate Court Considers Sale of Business and Duty to Mitigate
In Dussault v Imperial Oil Limited, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that two employees did not fail to mitigate their damages when they refused offers of employment from the purchaser of a former employer, as the employment that was offered was not “comparable.” Background In 2016, Imperial Oil sold its retail business to Mac’s…
Appellate Court Finds Waiver of Common Law Notice Valid, Considers Continuity of Service under ESA
In Ariss v NORR Limited Architects & Engineers, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a decision of a motion judge who considered the appellant’s entitlements under the common law and the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) upon termination. Background In 1986, the appellant began employment with a company which was sold to the respondent employer…
WSIA “Employment Function” Mental Stress Exclusion Considered by Appellate Court
In Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), the Divisional Court recently overturned a 2017 Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) decision that found the grievor’s right to a workplace free of harassment had been violated but that it had no jurisdiction to award damages…
Appellate Court Considers “Appropriate Means” Test Under Limitations Act and Reliance on “Non-Traditional” Expertise
In Presley v. Van Dusen, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided guidance on the statutory limitation period and the reliance on “non-traditional” experts. Background The appellant homeowners retained Van Dusen to install a septic system in 2010. There were problems with the operation of the system. The appellants called Van Dusen and he appeared to…
Appellate Court Upholds Termination for Frustration, Duty to Accommodate Not Triggered
In its recent decision Katz et al. v. Clarke, 2019 ONSC 2188, the Ontario Divisional Court set aside an order of a motion judge, granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s action. The decision involves important principles relating to frustration of contract and the duty to accommodate a disabled employee. The Court…