Appellate Court: Term “Probation” in Employment Contract Has A Clear Legal Meaning

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…

Supreme Court of Canada Grants Worldwide Injunction Against Google

On June 28, 2017, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada granted a worldwide interlocutory injunction against Google, requiring it to de-index websites of a distributor, Datalink. Datalink was using those websites to illegally sell intellectual property of another company and was also in breach of several court orders. The decision indicates that Canadian…

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…

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…

Appeal Court Affirms Exclusive Jurisdiction Model Applies in CFL Concussion Case

In a case that continues to attract media attention, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Court) upheld a lower court decision that concluded it was without jurisdiction to hear claims brought against the Canadian Football League (CFL), its teams and various individuals relating to concussions alleged to have occurred to a former professional football player,…

Court Renders Helpful Decision on Random Drug and Alcohol Testing

In a helpful decision for employers, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v Toronto Transit Commission, the Ontario Superior Court recently denied an application by the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 and others (Applicants) for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the implementation of the Toronto Transit Commission’s (TTC) random drug and alcohol testing, pending completion of…

The Truth Hurts: Employer Not Liable In Defamation For Bad Reference Because It Was True

The Ontario Superior Court has affirmed that employers are not liable for defamation when they provide candid and truthful references about former employees. In Papp v Stokes et al, 2017 ONSC 2357, the plaintiff, Adam Papp, worked as an economist for Stokes Economic Consulting for 2.5 years when his employment was terminated without cause in…