On March 28, 2018, the Ontario government tabled its 2018 Budget, A Plan for Care and Opportunity and introduced Bill 31, the Plan for Care and Opportunity Act (Budget Measures), 2018. The Budget outlines key initiatives around retirement security and pension reform, healthcare, education, further initiatives to specifically address gender equality issues, representation of women, and more…
Category: Uncategorized
Court Orders Employee Who Breached Fiduciary Duty to Pay Former Employer $20 Million
An Ontario Court recently awarded damages of $20 million for breach of fiduciary duty to Atlas Copco Canada Inc. (Atlas), from a former employee, in Atlas Copco Canada Inc. v. Hillier. The employee (Defendant) had been employed with Atlas as a general manager of one of its divisions and later as a vice-president. The fraudulent…
MOL’s ESA Guide Update for Equal Pay Provisions
We recently reported on the coming into force of the equal pay for equal work changes under Bill 148, Reminder: Equal Pay for Equal Work Provisions in Force April 1, 2018. The Ministry of Labour has recently updated its online Guide to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (Guide) to address equal pay for equal work…
2018 Ontario Budget Tabled
On March 28, 2018, the Ontario government tabled its Budget 2018, A Plan for Care and Opportunity. We are currently reviewing the Budget and an FTR Now highlighting initiatives of particular interest to employers, human resource professionals and pension plan administrators will be available shortly on our website.
OSFI Publishes Guidance Note for Member Choice DC Plan Default Investments
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) has published a new Guidance Note providing its interpretation and expectations relating to the requirements for the default investment selected by the administrator. The Guidance Note (Default Option for Member Choice Defined Contribution Plans) relates to defined contribution (DC) accounts or additional voluntary contribution accounts in…
Appellate Court Confirms Employer not Liable for Defamation for a Negative Reference Where the Reference is True
The Divisional Court has affirmed that an employer is not liable for defamation where a candid and truthful reference about a former employee has been provided. In Papp v Stokes et al, the plaintiff had sued his former employer (Stokes Economic Consulting) and its President (Ernest Stokes) for defamation, wrongful dismissal, punitive, exemplary and aggravated…
WSIA Amendments Imposing Costs for Workplace Accidents on Clients of Temporary Help Agencies Still Awaiting Proclamation
In 2014, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 (WSIA) was amended by Bill 18, the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014, to enact a broad regulation-making power with respect to injuries incurred by temporary help agency assignment employees who are injured while working for a client of the agency. Specifically, the injury…
Quebec Passes Legislation to Mirror CPP Enhancements and Makes Changes to its Pension Legislation
On February 21, 2018, Bill 149, An Act to enhance the Québec Pension Plan and to amend various retirement-related legislative provisions, was passed by the Quebec legislature. QPP Enhancements As outlined in our previous update, Bill 149 enhances the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), in a manner similar to the forthcoming enhancements to the Canada Pension…
Court Finds Employer Took Appropriate Steps to Change Terms of Employment – No Constructive Dismissal
In Lancia v. Park Dentistry, the Ontario Superior Court found that an employer who wished to change the terms of employment did not constructively dismiss a long-term employee because she was provided with 18 months’ working notice as well as a new contract with a signing bonus. The plaintiff worked as dental hygienist for the…
It’s All in the Timing – Minimum Standards and When Employees Are Considered to be “Working”
In this edition of the Monitor, we will summarize a few recent cases on the topic of when an employee is “working” and entitled to compensation. These cases demonstrate that not all travel time is compensable, that pre-employment training time can be compensable, and that an employer can determine that a meal break must be taken in the workplace as long as it is uninterrupted.