In a recent decision, R. v. ABS Machining Inc., the Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) charges against an employer where the injured worker’s unexpected and unauthorized act led to his injury. The decision confirms that employers can succeed in defending charges on the basis of due diligence when workers…
Publication Name: Case In Point
Employer Investigations Held to Standard of Reasonableness, not Correctness or Perfection
In a recent decision, Zambito v. LIUNA Local 183, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“Tribunal”) provided some useful guidance on internal employer investigations. It reiterated that while it is extremely important for employers to respond seriously and promptly to all allegations of discrimination and harassment, they will be not be held to a standard of…
Federal Court Confirms “Family Status” Applies to Mother-in-Law
In Canada (Attorney-General) v. Hicks, the Federal Court held that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (“CHRT”) did not err when it found that Human Resources and Services Development Canada (“HRSDC”) discriminated against Mr. Hicks in refusing to approve expenses associated with maintaining temporary dual residences after a relocation from Halifax to Ottawa. After Mr. Hicks…
Significant Damages Awarded Against Employer for Sexual Harassment of Temporary Foreign Workers
In a recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”), Vice-Chair Mark Hart imposed a significant damages award against corporate respondent Presteve Foods Ltd. and its directing mind, Jose Pratas (“the personal respondent”). In O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods Ltd., two Applicants, O.P.T. and M.P.T., alleged that the personal respondent had engaged in…
BCCA Affirms Order Requiring Google to Render Domains Unsearchable
Last Thursday, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia issued an important decision in Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Google Inc. about the power of a domestic court to make orders against non-party, internet “intermediaries” – in this case, search engine provider Google. The matter involved an order made to help a network hardware manufacturer enforce…
Court of Appeal Holds that Non-Party and Participant Experts Need Not Comply with Rule 53.03
Cases dealing with expert evidence have recently been considered by appellate courts. We have discussed two of those cases in our FTR Nows, Court of Appeal Holds that Counsel May Review Draft Expert Witness Reports and SCC Clarifies Test for Qualifying as an Expert Witness. In Westerhof v Gee Estate, the Court of Appeal for…
Courts Differ on Termination Provisions and Need for Future Compliance with ESA
Over the last few years, courts have been reluctant to enforce different “ESA only” termination provisions due to ambiguity. However, not all judges have taken the same position with respect to what constitutes an ambiguous termination provision. The following two cases offer differing views on termination provisions in employment contracts and future compliance with the…
(Yet Another) Ambiguous “ESA-only” Termination Provision Unenforceable
Another “ESA-only” termination provision in an employment contract has been found unenforceable by the Ontario Superior Court. In Howard v Benson Group, the Court decided that the termination provision providing only Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) minimum entitlements was ambiguous; therefore, the common law applied and the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable notice of termination….
Claim Against Employer Arising out of Social Event Allowed to Proceed
The decision of K.L. v. 1163957799 Quebec Inc. raises a caution for employers when planning social events. The employer hosted an unstructured evening social event at a water park where employees had unrestricted access to alcohol. The plaintiff brought an action against the employer and a supervisor as a result of an alleged sexual assault…
Termination Clause in Federal Employment Agreement Enforceable
The recent decision in Luney v. Day & Ross Inc. is good news for employers. The Plaintiff worked for an interprovincial trucking company subject to the Canada Labour Code (“Code”). The Defendant terminated the Plaintiff’s employment without cause and offered the Plaintiff a severance package that it asserted was consistent with the termination clause in…