The recent decision in Luney v. Day & Ross Inc. is good news for employers. The Plaintiff worked for an interprovincial trucking company subject to the Canada Labour Code (“Code”). The Defendant terminated the Plaintiff’s employment without cause and offered the Plaintiff a severance package that it asserted was consistent with the termination clause in…
Category: Employment Law
Federal Court: Unjust Dismissal Complaint for Without Cause Termination Requires Evidentiary Hearing
In a recent decision, Sigloy v. DHL Express (Canada) Ltd., the Federal Court overturned the decision of an adjudicator which had granted an employer’s preliminary objection and dismissed a complaint of unjust dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the complainant had been dismissed without cause. At the adjudication, the employer objected to the unjust dismissal…
Indefinite Suspensions with Pay: The SCC Clarifies the Test for Constructive Dismissal
The Supreme Court of Canada recently considered the common law doctrine of constructive dismissal in Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services, where a majority of the Court (with two justices concurring in the result) concluded that placing an employee on an indefinite administrative suspension with pay constituted constructive dismissal. It found that even where…
Solicitor-Client Privilege Does Not Necessarily Arise Where Lawyer Copied on Internal HR Email
Is an email sent by a human resources employee and copied to the employer’s lawyer covered by solicitor-client privilege? The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently answered this question in Jacobson v. Atlas Copco Canada Inc. This action involved a plaintiff’s claim for wrongful dismissal. His employment had been terminated for allegedly participating in a…
Another Reminder to Employers: Draft Termination Notice Provisions with Care
The Ontario Superior Court has reaffirmed that if a termination provision in an employment contract does not strictly comply with the requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”), it will be considered null and void. In Miller v. A.B.M. Canada Inc., the plaintiff, Mr. Miller, was a management accountant. He was hired into the position…
Ontario Reintroduces Legislation Amending Workplace Laws (Formerly Bill 146)
On July 16, 2014, the Ontario government introduced Bill 18, the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014 (“Bill 18”), proposed legislation that would, if passed, make significant changes to a number of employment-related statutes, including the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act,…
Common Law Notice – Can Employers Deduct STD and LTD Payments?
As demonstrated by the Ontario Superior Court’s recent decision in Diamantopoulos v. KPMG LLP (“KPMG“), the answer to this question is still “it depends.” In determining the issue, courts will look at a number of contextual factors to determine “the intention of the parties” when they entered the employment agreement. In KPMG, the plaintiff commenced a…
Court of Appeal Reduces 24.5 Months’ Notice Granted to 70 Year Old Employee
In 2013, the decision of Kotecha v. Affinia garnered some attention among employment lawyers and human resources professionals. The motion judge’s award of 24.5 months’ notice (22 months’ notice, in addition to the 11 weeks of working notice already provided) to a 70 year old employee was seen by some as a potential indicator marking…
No Jurisdiction to Determine Unjust Dismissal Complaint Where Employee Terminated Without Cause Pursuant to Employment Contract
In a recent adjudication under the Canada Labour Code (the “Code”), Adjudicator Rose relied on the Federal Court decision in Atomic Energy of Canada v. Wilson to grant an employer’s preliminary objection and dismiss an unjust dismissal complaint. In doing so, he found that in the case of without cause terminations an adjudicator lacks jurisdiction under the…
Supreme Court of Canada Provides Clarity to the Deductibility of Income Replacement Benefits from Wrongful Dismissal Damages
The Supreme Court of Canada has provided some much needed clarity to the issue of the deductibility of income replacement benefits from wrongful dismissal damages in its long-awaited decision, IBM Canada Ltd. v. Waterman (“Waterman”). Justice Cromwell, writing for the majority of the Court, dealt with the deductibility of pension benefit payments in particular. Ultimately,…