Matthew is the chair of the firm’s Healthcare Practice Group. He advises a wide variety of employers in both the public and private sectors on issues relating to their workplaces. He appears before labour arbitrators, in court, and before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal. He also regularly acts as spokesperson in collective bargaining.
Industry: Long-Term Care and Home Care
Mark H. Mason
Mark’s practice includes arbitration advocacy, employment litigation, human rights proceedings and the entire spectrum of collective bargaining including interest arbitrations and strike management. Mark advises a variety of employers and brings a practical and solutions-focused approach to the legal services he provides.
Carolyn L. Kay
Carolyn is a labour and employment lawyer who advises employers on the wide range of legal rights and responsibilities associated with their relationship with employees and unions. She provides ongoing advice to employers in their collective bargaining relationships and she heads up the firm’s practice group for pay equity, an area in which she has developed a singular expertise.
Stephanie N. Jeronimo
Stephanie advises and represents both public and private sector employers on a wide range of labour and employment matters. Her practice includes collective agreement negotiations, rights and interest arbitrations, human rights applications, wrongful dismissal litigation, employment standards and pay equity matters.
Ontario to Reform Certain Workplace Laws Relating to Construction Labour, Pensions and Workplace Safety and Insurance
On November 18, 2015, the Ontario government introduced Bill 144, the Budget Measures Act, 2015, omnibus legislation that would, if passed and among other things, implement reforms to construction labour relations, workplace safety and insurance indexing and to certain rules governing multi-employer pension asset transfers. The proposed Bill 144 changes include: Amending the construction industry provisions of…
Appeal Court Confirms that Employer’s Financial Circumstances Not a Factor in Determining Reasonable Notice
Are an employer’s financial circumstances a relevant consideration in determining the period of reasonable notice to which a wrongfully dismissed employee is entitled? This is the question the Court of Appeal for Ontario was asked to decide in Michela v. St. Thomas of Villanova Catholic School, where the motion judge had reduced damages in lieu of…
Update on Timing of Proposed Changes to Taxation of Stock Options
In remarks accompanying the new federal government’s first fiscal update, on November 20, 2015, Canada’s Minister of Finance provided further guidance on proposed changes to tax rules that would limit the annual deduction from income that employees can claim upon exercising stock options. Significantly, Minister Morneau indicated that any such changes would only apply to…
Appeal Court Decision Underscores Importance of Clear Terms of Hire at Outset
In a recent decision, Holland v. Hostopia.com. Inc., the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that a termination provision in an employment agreement purporting to limit the appellant’s entitlements upon termination of employment to the statutory minimums under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) was unenforceable due to lack of consideration. The appellant had commenced employment…
Raising the Bar – Eleventh Edition
Dear Friends, As we are heading into the busy holiday season, we wanted to give you, our loyal RTB readers, some reading material for any quiet moments that you might be able to steal before the New Year. We are delighted to bring you this newest edition of RTB. In this edition, we bring you…
Is an Employer Required to Accommodate an Employee’s “Personal Choice” to Breastfeed?
In Flatt v. Canada (Attorney General), a case that has garnered media attention, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a decision that found an applicant who requested accommodation to breastfeed her child during working hours failed to meet the test for establishing prima facie discrimination. The Court held this request involved the applicant’s “personal choice” – not…