Tag: Employment Contracts

Ontario Court of Appeal Comments on Notice Entitlements Following an Asset Transaction

· 4 min read

In Manthadi v. ASCO Manufacturing, the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously found that summary judgment was not appropriate in a case where a plaintiff was awarded 20 months’ reasonable notice damages after one month service with a company (Purchaser) that had bought the assets of her former employer (Vendor). The Court set aside the summary…

Appellate Court Holds Termination Clauses Must Be Read Together – If One Contravenes the ESA, All Are Unenforceable

· 4 min read

In Waksdale v Swegon North America, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the “without cause” and “with cause” termination clauses in an employment contract must be read together: if one is not compliant with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), both are unenforceable. The plaintiff employee sued the defendant employer for damages for wrongful…

OMHRA Fall ECHO Newsletter Features Two Articles by Jessica Toldo

The Fall 2018 issue of OMHRA’s ECHO newsletter features two articles co-authored by Hicks Morley lawyer Jessica Toldo.

In the article “Considerations for Municipal Employers When Drafting Termination Clauses in Employment Contracts,” Jessica discusses the importance of municipal employers having a clear and well-crafted termination provision to minimize the risk that a reviewing court will find the clause to be unenforceable, should litigation arise and highlight five key considerations when drafting termination clauses in light of some important developments in the case law.

The second article authored by Jessica, “HRTO Determines Requiring Proof of Eligibility to Work in Canada on a Permanent Basis is Discriminatory,” reviews a recent case where the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that a pre-employment ‘permanence requirement’ was discriminatory on the basis of the applicant’s citizenship.

Benefits Canada Publishes an Article by Thomas Agnew on an Employer’s Right to Change Job Conditions

Hicks Morley’s Thomas Agnew authored an article in Benefits Canada titled “Court Confirms Employer’s Right to Change Job Conditions.” In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that an employer didn’t constructively dismiss a long-service employee when it provided the individual with 18 months of working notice prior to asking her to enter into a new employment contract that included changes to vacation pay and a signing bonus…

Workplace Law in Canada: A Primer

· 1 min read

This Guide provides American employers with an introduction to employment laws and regulations that affect businesses in Canada. It outlines an overview of the main differences between Canadian and U.S. workplace laws.

Benefits Canada Publishes an Article by Thomas Agnew on Termination in Employment Contracts

Hicks Morley’s Thomas Agnew authored an article in Benefits Canada titled “Employers Given Mixed Messages on Termination in Employment Contracts.” Employment contracts often contain clauses limiting an employee’s entitlement upon termination to the minimum entitlements under the Employment Standards Act or any other amount the employer and employee have agreed to. However, if the clauses violate the act in any way, courts may not enforce them.

The Latest Word on Restrictive Covenants from the Supreme Court of Canada

· 8 min read

The law on restrictive covenants is all about context. Restrictive covenants typically arise in a sale of a business agreement or an employment contract. If you are drafting a restrictive covenant or determining whether a covenant is enforceable, you must be aware of the context because the applicable legal principles vary based on the context….

Ontario Court Upholds Forfeiture-On-Resignation Provision of Equity Incentive Plan

· 7 min read

In a decision released on September 12, 2013,[1] the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the enforceability of a provision of an employer’s incentive compensation plan pursuant to which unmatured awards are forfeited upon an employee’s resignation. The Court held that the provision was a permissible loyalty incentive rather than an unlawful restraint on trade….