In a recent decision (R. v. Metron Construction Corporation, 2013 ONCA 541), the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the fine imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice in respect of four fatalities, and imposed a fine almost four times greater. As previously reported (August 20, 2012 FTR Now – “Court Imposes Criminal Code Fines For…
Publication Type: Article
Financial Services Tribunal Interprets the Accrued Benefit Protections of the Pensions Benefits Act (Ontario)
On August 15, 2013, the Ontario Financial Services Tribunal (“FST”) issued its decision in Royal Ontario Museum Curatorial Association v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), concerning an amendment made to The Royal Ontario Museum Pension Plan (“Plan”). The Plan is a defined benefit (“DB”) pension plan. At issue before the FST was whether an amendment to…
GM had Contractual Right to Reduce Retiree Benefits of Executives, But Not Other Salaried Employees
In a recent class action motion, O’Neill v. General Motors of Canada, the Ontario Superior Court concluded that General Motors of Canada (“GM”) breached its contract with certain non-executive salaried employees when it reduced their post-retirement benefits after they had retired. The Court found that GM had not clearly and unambiguously reserved its right to…
OCA Upholds Termination Clause in Employment Contract
In a recent decision, Dimson v. KTI Kanatek Technologies Inc., the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the termination provision in an employment contract was enforceable and did not violate the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”). At issue were the following contract provisions: Section 18 (c) In addition, [the employer] may terminate this Agreement…
The Duty to Accommodate and Poor Workplace Performance
What happens when an employee with physical restrictions is placed in a position consistent with those restrictions and provided with sufficient training, but is unable to perform the functions of that position? An Ontario arbitrator recently found that an employee’s inability to perform in such a position was unrelated to her disability, and that she…
Mandatory Retirement Upheld for Suppression Fire Fighters: HRTO Clarifies Accommodation Obligations
In its recent decision, Corrigan v. Mississauga (City), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) considered whether a municipal employer had a positive obligation to consider requests for individual exceptions to the mandatory retirement policy of age 60 for suppression fire fighters and to work with those fire fighters to develop a medical fitness testing…
The Ontario Court of Appeal Confirms Pension Assignments must be “Clear and Unambiguous”
In a marriage breakdown situation where family assets are being valued and/or divided, a member’s workplace pension entitlements are often the most significant asset. To settle the property issues, a member and his or her spouse may agree that the member will assign an interest in the member’s benefit to the spouse. Unfortunately, it is…
OHRC Develops Policy on Removing the “Canadian Experience” Barrier for Job Applicants
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (“OHRC”) recently posted a new policy directive entitled “Policy on Removing the “Canadian experience” barrier” which sets out the Commission’s position as follows: . . . a strict requirement for “Canadian experience” is prima facie discrimination (discrimination on its face) and can only be used in very limited circumstances. The…
Significant decision on establishing “prima facie discrimination” rendered by the Court of Appeal for Ontario
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has rendered a significant decision in Peel Law Association v. Pieters regarding the test for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. The Court upheld a finding of the HRTO that race and colour were factors in the questioning by a librarian of three applicants (two lawyers and a…
Court Upholds Discharge for Sexual Harassment
In a recent decision, the Ontario Divisional Court found that the discharge of an employee (grievor) who had sexually harassed a co-worker was an appropriate penalty. An arbitrator’s decision reinstating the grievor had relied on irrelevant factors and therefore fell outside the range of possible defensible outcomes. The irrelevant factors considered by the arbitrator included…