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…
Publication Name: Case In Point
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.
Criminal Negligence Convictions Following Workplace Fatality Send Clear Message to Employers
R. v. J. Cote and Son Excavating Ltd., 2025 BCSC 2540, a recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court, serves as a stark reminder that workplace safety failures can give rise to criminal liability for employers. In this decision, an employer was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily…
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.
Arbitrator Reinstates Steelworker in Safety Sensitive Role Following Termination for Cannabis Use During Lunch Break
When does lunch break cannabis use justify termination—especially in a safety sensitive role? In this article, Matthew Wronko provides an analysis of a recent arbitration award and what this means for employers drafting drug and alcohol and fitness for duty policies
Divisional Court Reinforces Tradition of Judicial Deference to Ontario’s Labour Relations Board
Judicial deference to the OLRB remains firmly intact, especially in construction labour relations. In this article, Thomas Trudell reviews a recent Divisional Court decision affirming the OLRB’s authority in construction work assignment disputes and its long‑standing approach to jurisdictional issues.
“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.
Nova Scotia Court Finds Cross-Canada Termination Clause Unenforceable: A Cautionary Tale for Multi-Jurisdiction Employers
Jurisdiction matters when drafting cross-country contracts. In this article, we examine the Brocklehurst v Micco Companies decision where Micco’s termination clause was found unenforceable under Nova Scotia legislation and explore the broader implications for employers to ensure provisions are precise and effective across Canada.
When Last Chance Truly Means Last Chance: Arbitrator Upholds Termination Over Unauthorized Absence
Hicks Morley’s Madeline Lusk examines why an employer’s decision to terminate after an employee breached a last chance agreement was upheld.
No Takebacks: Ontario Court Rejects Employee’s Attempt to Rewrite Settlement Terms in Johnstone v. Loblaw
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has delivered a clear message about the binding nature of settlement agreements in employment disputes, emphasizing that acceptance of settlement terms creates legally binding obligations that cannot be unilaterally modified after the fact.
In Johnstone v. Loblaw, Justice Brownstone enforced a settlement despite the employee’s subsequent attempts to introduce new conditions, stating emphatically that “Buyer’s remorse, a change of heart, or even growing concern about his ability to close his house purchase do not entitle him to renege on a settlement.”