In order for a termination clause in an employment contract to be considered valid, it must adhere to the minimum standards under the Ontario Employment Standards Act (“ESA”). Many employers include termination clauses to reflect their intention to limit entitlements owed to an employee based on these standards. In order for courts to consider the termination provisions in an employment contract valid, the clause must be drafted in a manner that clearly reflects the parties’ intentions to abide by the ESA’s statutory minimums. This includes addressing issues such as continued payment of employee benefits, severance, providing reasonable notice and payment…
When an employer deliberately misleads or lies to a prospective employee to induce him or her to accept an offer of employment, the employer can be held liable for their negligent misrepresentations. Courts have held that both employers and employees owe a duty of care to each other during the recruitment process. The British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Feldstein v 364 Northern Development Corporation provided employers with a reminder that negligent misrepresentation during the hiring process can prove to be a costly mistake. In Feldstein, a prospective employee for an engineering position was misled about the eligibility requirements…
Employers must exercise caution when drafting the terms of employment contracts. An improperly drafted provision in an employment contract can have unintended consequences, even if those provisions seem valid at the time the contract is executed. Contract provisions, at minimum, must fall within the minimum standards set out in provincial legislation, both in the present and as the contract endures into the future. The Ontario Employment Standards Act (ESA) provides the minimum standards for most employees in Ontario. The Act establishes rights and responsibilities for employees and employers, including the minimum standards surrounding reasonable notice or payments in lieu of…
The duty of good faith imposed on employers is a well-established principle of Canadian employment law. Following the decision in Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., bad faith conduct by an employer became yet another factor Courts will consider when determining the period of reasonable notice for an employee. Bad faith damages were typically referred to as Wallace damages and allowed Courts to extend the reasonable notice period where bad faith conduct by an employer was found. The Supreme Court of Canada changed the calculation for bad faith conduct in their decision in Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays. Now, damages…
In Ruston v Keddco Mfg. (2011) Ltd., the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the issues of just cause for employee termination and the appropriate notice period owed to the employee if the employer did not have cause to terminate? The Court found that the trial judge and the employment lawyers were correct in finding that the employer failed to prove just causation in terminating the employee. The Court also agrees with the trial judge’s award of a 19-month notice period. The trial judge applied the Bardal factors and emphasized important considerations, such as the appellant’s age (54), finding of…
As of January 1, 2018, claims for work-related chronic mental stress have been recognized in workplace compensation cases in Ontario. The vast majority of these chronic mental stress claims however have been unsuccessful given the difficult criteria required to prove these claims. Employment lawyers in Toronto state that a worker is generally entitled to benefits for chronic mental stress “if an appropriately diagnosed mental stress injury is caused by a substantial work-related stressor.” In addition, the WSIB decision-maker must be able to identify what has happened to cause chronic mental stress, including gathering information from co-workers and supervisory staff. This…
In Greenlees v. Starline Windows Ltd., [2018] B.C.J. No. 3074, the British Columbia Supreme Court awarded an employee six months’ notice after working for only six months. Prior to working for Starline Windows, Mr. Greenlees worked for Trevor Jarvis Contracting, earning roughly $100,000 per year as a sales representative. In January 2017, Mr. Greenlees received a cold call from a sales manager at Starline Windows to discuss a job opportunity. Over the course of two meetings, Mr. Greenlees was offered a position working primarily in new residential projects with occasional work in renovation construction projects. The Starline representative estimated potential…
The applicable jurisprudence on mitigation makes it clear that following a wrongful dismissal, if an employee declines a job, then the monies that would have been earned through performing the rejected job may well be deducted from any damages ultimately obtained by the plaintiff. But what about earnings from a second job or a side job? When an employee consults on the side or has a side job that is continued into the post-termination period, will this count as mitigation income?
The Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code“) prohibits discrimination in five areas, including employment. An employee who successfully establishes a violation of the Code at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) may be entitled to reinstatement and back pay, an award of general damages for “injury to dignity, feelings and self-esteem,” or both.
In a recent case titled Lalonde v. Sena Solid Waste Holdings Inc. 2017 ABQB 374, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench considered whether failing to hear an employee’s side of the story before dismissing him for cause could increase an employer’s liability. The Plaintiff was a Journeyman Millwright. While employed he was called into a meeting by his manager where he was accused of serious safety violations, insubordination, and lying. The Plaintiff was given little opportunity to present his side of the story to the employer. The Plaintiff had been accused of stealing company property and was escorted off company…