The Ontario Court of Appeal recently confirmed that the term “probation” in an employment contract has a clear legal meaning. It upheld the termination of an employee during a six-month probationary period, who had been dismissed with payment of his applicable entitlements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). Common law has long recognized a…
Practice Area: Employment Law
Court Disapproves of Employee’s Surreptitious Recordings of Meetings with Employer
In Hart v Parrish & Heimbecker, a trial judge recently upheld the dismissal of a 42-year old Merchandising Manager (Plaintiff) with 15 of years service, for a series of separate incidents that he had with peers and subordinates. The Plaintiff had engaged in inappropriate conduct which included repeatedly yelling at employees, displaying excessive anger and…
FTR Quarterly – Issue 6
In This Issue Gender Identity and Gender Expression: Best Practices for Employers and Service Providers FTRQ&A – Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act Quick Hit – Changing Workplaces Review: A Bill 148 Timeline The Dos & Don’ts of Employment Reference Letters: Best Practices for Employers Featured Lawyer – Simon Mortimer Featured Group – Pay Equity Featured Articles…
Bill 148: Public Hearing Dates Announced
On June 22, 2017, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs (Committee) met to adopt procedural recommendations from its subcommittee with respect to the public hearings for Bill 148. Employers wishing to participate in these hearings should take note of the following information…
Federal Post – Sixth Edition
We are pleased to bring you this promised Federal Post edition on recent case law updates of significance to employers in the federal sector.
Laila Karimi Hendry and Amy Tibble, both of our Toronto office, write about two unjust dismissal cases “post-Wilson” that you should know about.
David Foster of our London office provides a summary of recent cases interpreting the new test for “danger” under the Canada Labour Code…
The Supreme Court’s Decision on Proving Mental Injury and its Implications for Employers
In a recent decision, Saadati v. Moorhead, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that proof of a recognized psychiatric injury is no longer necessary to award damages for mental injuries caused by negligence. Although this finding was made in the context of a personal injury case, it may have implications for employers. The plaintiff/appellant…
A Legislative and Case Law Update for School Boards
In this latest edition of our School Board Update, we provide you with a brief overview of the significant changes recently proposed by the Ontario government to the employment and labour laws in our province…
Executive Compensation for Ontario BPS Organizations – A Summary of Recent Changes
On June 8 and 9, 2017, the Ontario government made a series of significant changes to the BPSECA Executive Compensation Framework. The changes include amendments to the content required of compensation programs, the timing of the development of those programs, and the process organizations must follow to implement their compensation programs…
Ontario Government Amends Executive Compensation Regulation
On June 8, 2017, the Ontario government filed O. Reg. 187/17 which amends the “Executive Compensation Framework” regulation (O. Reg. 304/16) made under the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014 (BPSECA). On June 9th the government issued a new Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Program Directive and amended the existing Broader Public Sector Executive…
Sexual Assault: When is an Employer Vicariously Liable?
In a recent decision, Ivic v. Lakovic, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a claim against a taxi company whose driver allegedly sexually assaulted the appellant. The Court found that the alleged acts were only coincidentally connected to the taxi company and the company did not confer any power on the driver over the appellant….