Employment Law

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…

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…

As Ontario employers and employees know, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”) was recently amended by Bill 148 introducing a number of sweeping changes. Most of those changes have already come into effect, such as the increase of the minimum wage to $14 per hour effective January 1, 2018. Other changes are being introduced at a later date such as an employee having the right, without fear of reprisal, to request changes to their work schedule or location if they’ve been employed for 3 months. One change has already been reversed and this will affect employees’ take-home pay.

In order for the duty to accommodate to be triggered, an employee must have a legitimate reason for making such an accommodation request. For instance, if a worker claims to have a disability, he/she must present medical evidence of this disability. Similarly, if the accommodation request is based on a religious requirement, the employee must truly be a practitioner of that faith – and the religious requirement must be real, not fabricated. The need must be compelling. So, what are the steps for approving the duty to accommodate in regards to religion?

In a very recent decision, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ("HRTO") ruled that it was unconstitutional for an employer to terminate the benefit plans of an employee who turned 65. Talos v Grand Erie District School Board involved an employee whose extended health, dental and life insurance benefits were terminated by his employer, Grand Erie District School Board, when he turned age 65, although he continued to work on a full-time basis. After the termination of his benefit plans, Mr. Talos brought an application alleging discrimination on the basis of age. The issue was whether the exception contained in s….