In Dorceus v. Ontario, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that courts are not the place for sweeping political or scientific debates disconnected from viable legal claims. The decision is a useful reminder that civil claims must be grounded in material facts, that unmeritorious claims can be struck early, and that certain workplace-related disputes must proceed through the specialized forums with exclusive jurisdiction. Hicks Morley’s Shauna Bartlett reviews the decision and what it means for future claims.
Practice Area: Litigation
A Deal Is a Deal: Lessons From Stribling v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc.
In Stribling v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., the Ontario Superior Court addressed a scenario in which an employer made a separation offer that was accepted in writing by the employee. However, the employee did not sign the release that was delivered to him by the employer and then sued for wrongful dismissal. The court treated…
Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (OPSBA): 2026 Education Labour Relations and Human Resources Symposium
From workplace safety and accommodation to arbitration innovation and equity in education, the Hicks Morley team will be speaking at OPSBA’s Education Labour Relations and Human Resources Symposium on April 23-24.
Lessons In Employer Copyright Ownership From Nexus Solutions Inc. v. Krougly
Nassima Kaddoura outlines a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision is a reminder that employers can’t assume they own employee created work — even if it competes with their business. Read the case in point and learn the key takeaways for employers.
BCCA Upholds Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy Where Employer Relied on Provincial Health Officer’s Opinion
A recent ruling offers new guidance to the reasonableness of mandatory workplace policies. In this article, Andrew Schjerning breaks down a recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision confirming that employers may reasonably rely on public health authority guidance when implementing mandatory COVID‑19 vaccination policies.
“No News” May Not Mean “No New Employment”: Settlement Drafting Lessons From Cross v. Cooling Tower Maintenance Inc.
When it comes to settlement agreements, precision is non-negotiable. In this article, Justin Jalea explores the recent Cross v. Cooling Tower maintenance Inc. decision and provides important reminders for employers drafting settlement agreements involving salary continuance and clawback provisions.
Build a Better Employment Agreement: Cracking the Clause Code
Strong employment agreements are built in the details. Join Elisha Jamieson-Davies, Natasha Monkman and Amy Tibble on March 4 as they offer a practical look at a series of contract clauses that may not always be top of mind. Register now to gain actionable drafting insights to strengthen your organization’s employment agreements!
Build a Better Employment Agreement: Drafting Essentials
Employment agreements evolve—and your templates should too. Join Hicks Morley’s Elisha Jamieson-Davis, Natasha Monkman and Amy Tibble on June 17 as they break down common pressure points and practical tips for drafting employment contracts that stand up in practice. Register now to learn how small drafting changes can reduce big employment risks.
Federal Government Reminds Federally Regulated Employers About Harassment and Violence Policy Compliance
Are your harassment and violence prevention policies up to date? George Vuicic breaks down the federal government’s recent reminder and what federally regulated employers should revisit to ensure continued compliance in the year ahead.
Congratulations to New Partner Lesley Campbell
We are pleased to announce that Lesley Campbell has joined the firm’s partnership. Lesley provides practical advice and representation to employers and management in both the private and public sectors on a wide range of employment, human rights, and labour issues.