Employment Law

Depending on the facts of their situation, aggrieved employees who’ve been treated unlawfully by their employers (or former employers) have different legal routes they can take. Generally, courts and tribunals disfavour the commencement of multiple legal proceedings stemming from the same legal issue. This helps provide efficiency and ensures that defendants to proceedings are not harassed repeatedly for the same legal problem. It also helps prevent claimants from relitigating their case if unsuccessful. The legal doctrine that encapsulates this is called “issue estoppel.” Further, some legal bodies specifically preclude making a claim for the same relief in multiple proceedings. For…

Matthews v Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd is a landmark employment law case that was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in January 2020. David Matthews worked for Ocean Nutrition from 1997 to 2011. In June 2011, he sued Ocean Nutrition for wrongful dismissal damages, including the loss of a Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which had been paid to him by the company regularly throughout his employment. The Plan provided that, if the company was sold while Matthews was employed by it, he was entitled to receive a portion of the sale proceeds based on the formula contained in the…

One of the most important decisions an employment lawyer must make when they first assess a claim is deciding the appropriate forum in which to bring a potential claim. Generally, a legal issue stemming from a specific circumstance cannot be litigated in more than one forum. As an example, a worker who has been terminated from their employment shortly after they announced their pregnancy cannot commence an application before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal) and a claim before the Ministry of Labour (the “Ministry”). ‘Double dipping’ in such a manner is considered an abuse of process, and where…

When your employer unilaterally announced a significant reduction in your pay due to financial difficulties or any other reasons during your employment, should you stay and keep working at the reduced rates, or leave and treat the reduction in pay as constructive dismissal? The answer is LEAVE NOW and consult with a lawyer as soon as possible. Stay and keep working can be considered a silent acceptance of the changes in your employment relationship with your employer, which may disentitle you from a constructive dismissal claim. However, even you explicitly objected to the changes, namely the significant reduction in pay…

One of the most salient considerations in actions for wrongful dismissal is whether the plaintiff claims extraordinary damages against his or her former employer. In a wrongful dismissal claim, “ordinary damages” are typically defined as the amount of pay in lieu of reasonable notice that an employee was presumptively owed at common law, but for which the employer never paid them upon termination. These damages are almost always claimed in such matters as they essentially form the main “cause of action.” They arise from the contractual breach of the implied term of reasonable notice that employers are bound by at…

The oppression remedy is a valuable legal tool that allows for redress when corporate conduct is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly disregards the interests of, shareholders, creditors, directors or officers of a corporation. At common law, courts are quite hesitant to intervene in a corporation’s affairs due to an often-cited rule called the ‘business judgment rule.’ The judiciary has humbly recognized that not only does it lack the material expertise with respect to running a corporation, but that businesses operate in incredibly complex systems. Therefore, a presumption is granted to business directors and executives that in making a…

Being terminated from your employment can be a very stressful experience. Unfortunately, this can result in poor in-the-moment decision-making that you may later regret. Many people that find themselves in such a situation are too quick to agree to a settlement with their employers. They sign release documents only to later realize that they may have been entitled to more than they agreed to and wish that they could bring a claim against their former employer. Release documents in such situations generally prevent a former employee from bringing any claims against his or her former employer, often including human rights…

Employees are generally entitled to reasonable notice of the termination of their employment or pay in lieu thereof at common law. Courts usually determine what length of notice is “reasonable” in any given case by considering the factors set out in Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., [1960] OJ No 149 (SC), which include: the character of the employment, the length of the employee’s service, the employee’s age, and the availability of alternative employment given the employee’s training, qualifications and reasonable prospects of finding suitable employment. However, Canadian courts have recognized additional factors that may be relevant to the appropriate…

Employees who are wrongfully dismissed are generally expected to make reasonable efforts to mitigate the damages arising from their termination. Typically, this involves attempting to find new, comparable employment. If an employer can show that the former employee (1) did not make reasonable efforts to find replacement work, and (2) would likely have obtained work had those efforts been made, courts will usually reduce any wrongful dismissal damages awarded to the employee. In court, employees usually try to avoid such an outcome by providing evidence of their mitigation efforts in the form of a log of jobs that they have…

When an employee is terminated without just cause, he or she is generally entitled to common law reasonable notice or pay in lieu thereof. In Ontario, courts determine the amount of notice that is “reasonable” in a given case by considering the Bardal factors, which include character of employment, length of service, age, and availability of similar employment having regard to the experience, training and qualifications of the employee. However, other considerations may be taken into account in some circumstances. Case Law On several occasions, employers have tried to argue that one such consideration should be the financial circumstances of…

There are substantial limitations on unionized employees’ abilities to seek recourse for their employer’s misconduct outside of arbitration and the procedures set out in their collective agreements. However, unionized employees often have another option when the issue is related to human rights, as they are allowed to file complaints about workplace discrimination with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”). This post will briefly outline when this option is available to unionized employees, and some of the factors that may be relevant to deciding on which route to pursue when seeking a remedy for workplace discrimination. The Human Rights…