In Ontario, simply having a workplace accident is not automatically just cause for dismissal. Employers must prove that your conduct went beyond a mere mistake. Just cause is a high bar, and courts apply a contextual approach to determine whether it’s met.

When It’s NOT Just Cause:

• A one-time error in judgment
• Simple negligence
• Honest mistakes

When It MAY Be Just Cause:

• Gross negligence or reckless disregard for safety
• Deliberate breaches of safety protocols
• Repeated misconduct, despite prior warnings
• Dishonesty, such as failing to report the incident

Case in Point: In Rankin v. Active Mold and Design, a single safety breach involving hazardous equipment was enough for termination because of the danger posed. In this case, the employee left dangerous machinery running unattended; a serious safety violation. The equipment could have injured others in the shop. It wasn’t a pattern of behaviour, just a single incident, but the consequences could’ve been catastrophic. The employer terminated him for cause, and the court agreed. Even though it was a one-time mistake, the court found it was reckless and posed an imminent safety risk. That elevated the incident from mere negligence to serious misconduct.

Case in Point: Daley v. Depco International demonstrates that if there are repeated issues around safety, a termination can be justified. Daley’s employer kept a file on his repeated workplace issues: carelessness, absences, arguments with co-workers, amounting to nine incidents in total. After repeated warnings and discipline, the final straw was another preventable problem. When the company fired him for cause, Daley challenged it in court. But the court said enough was enough. Even though no single mistake was serious enough to justify dismissal on its own, the pattern of misconduct showed a lack of reliability and poor judgment over time. That justified termination for cause.

Case in Point: Lagala v. Patene Building Supplies shows that dishonesty around a workplace injury can lead to just cause for termination. Lagala was a health and safety manager, so she was someone expected to model compliance. When she suffered a workplace injury, she didn’t report it for months, even though it was her legal obligation under the WSIB. When her employer found out, she was fired for cause. The Ontario Superior Court upheld the dismissal because of the failure to report, the concealment, and the fact that she was in a leadership role where trust and integrity were crucial.

Employer Responsibility Matters: If your employer failed to train you properly or didn’t enforce safety policies, that weakens their case for firing you “for cause.”

Bottom Line: A workplace accident usually means termination without cause, which requires notice or severance. Only serious misconduct justifies being fired “for cause.”

Need Help?

Give our office a call. The lawyers at De Bousquet PC are here to support Ontario workers. Whether you’re reviewing a contract or dealing with a workplace issue, we can help you understand your rights and your options.

The post Can You Be Fired for Causing an Accident at Work? first appeared on De Bousquet Professional Corporation Blog.

In Ontario, the Employment Standards Act (ESA) doesn’t explicitly forbid or authorize unpaid suspensions. But that doesn’t mean employers have free rein. Courts have stepped in to define what’s acceptable, and the message is clear: unpaid suspensions are risky and often amount to constructive dismissal.

What the Law Says:

Unless your employment contract specifically allows unpaid suspensions, your employer likely has no legal right to impose one. Even with a clause in your contract permitting it, the employer must justify the suspension —especially its unpaid nature. Otherwise, it’s a breach of contract and could entitle you to damages.

Key Case Law:

1. Filice v. Complex Services Inc. (ONCA 2018)

Filice worked at a casino. His employer suspected misconduct and suspended him without pay while investigating. Even though the contract included a suspension clause, it didn’t say the suspension could be unpaid. And the employer couldn’t offer any solid reason for why Filice had to go without income.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled the unpaid suspension was a constructive dismissal. Filice didn’t quit, the employer, by acting unfairly, effectively ended the contract.

Lesson: Even if your employer thinks they’re covered by the contract, they have to justify their decision to withhold pay. Without justification, it’s a legal breach.

2. Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid (SCC 2015)

David Potter was the Executive Director of Legal Aid. One day, without warning, he was told not to come back to work. No explanation, no end date, no pay. Potter sued.

At the Supreme Court of Canada, the judges sided with him. They said that suspending someone indefinitely with no reason and no explanation is not only unfair — it’s a fundamental breach of the employment relationship.

They introduced a two-part test for constructive dismissal:

1. Did the employer breach a key term of the contract?
2. Would a reasonable person in the employee’s shoes think the employer no longer intended to be bound by the agreement?

In Potter’s case, the answer to both was yes. He was constructively dismissed.

Lesson: Employers need a legitimate business reason for suspensions, especially unpaid ones

3. Hookimawillile v. Payukotayno (ONSC 2019)

A social services worker was suspended without pay during a series of workplace investigations. Her employment contract and the company policies had no mention of unpaid suspensions. And she wasn’t given a timeline for when, or if, she’d return.

She took her employer to court, and the judge said this was a constructive dismissal.

The court applied the Potter test and found that suspending someone without pay, with no contractual basis, no notice, and no plan, was a fundamental breach of the employment relationship.

Lesson: Even in complicated situations like investigations, employers can’t improvise a punishment. If the contract doesn’t say “unpaid suspension,” it’s not allowed, unless they can justify it in truly exceptional circumstances.

Bottom Line: If you’re suspended without pay and your contract doesn’t authorize it — or the employer can’t justify it — you may have been constructively dismissed, and legal remedies could be available.

Need Help?

Give our office a call. The lawyers at De Bousquet PC are here to support Ontario workers. Whether you’re reviewing a contract or dealing with a workplace issue, we can help you understand your rights and your options.

The post Unpaid Suspensions– Are they Legal or Constructive Dismissal? first appeared on De Bousquet Professional Corporation Blog.

When It’s Likely Constructive Dismissal:

• Your responsibilities are significantly reduced
• Your title or authority is downgraded
• Your compensation is cut without agreement
• The new role is humiliating or career-limiting

Case Highlights:

• Blight v. Nokia Products (ONSC 2012): Status and prestige matter — even with the same salary, the employee was constructively dismissed. Blight was moved from a high-profile leadership role to a back-office technical position, even though his title and pay stayed the same. The court found that the loss of status, visibility, and influence amounted to a substantial unilateral change in the employment relationship. Despite no cut in pay, the court ruled it was a constructive dismissal.
• Brake v. PJ-M2R (ONCA 2017): A forced demotion without contractual authority was humiliating and illegal. Brake was told to either accept a demotion to a junior role or be fired. The demotion involved a significant reduction in status and was presented in a coercive way after a one-sided “performance improvement” plan. The Court of Appeal agreed it was constructive dismissal and emphasized that an employee shouldn’t have to choose between humiliation and unemployment.
• Evans v. Teamsters (SCC 2008): Employees don’t need to work in an atmosphere of humiliation just to mitigate damages. Evans was offered continued work after being constructively dismissed but declined because the environment had become hostile and humiliating. The Supreme Court ruled that employees aren’t required to work in degrading or uncomfortable conditions just to mitigate damages. This case clarified that workplace atmosphere matters, not just the job title or duties.
• O’Dwyer v. Dominion Soil Investigation Inc. (1999 ONSC): Employees can be demoted if their conduct would justify termination. O’Dwyer was demoted after misconduct that would have justified termination. The employer chose to demote him instead, and the court upheld it as a reasonable disciplinary alternative. When there’s just cause, a demotion may be allowed and does not amount to constructive dismissal.

When Demotion May Be Legal:

• Your contract allows it
• It’s part of a good-faith accommodation (e.g., due to medical issues)
• You were demoted instead of being fired for just cause (e.g., in lieu of dismissal)

Bottom Line: Demotions aren’t always legal. If yours wasn’t agreed to or justified, and it significantly changes your job, you may have a claim for constructive dismissal.

Need Help?

Give our office a call. The lawyers at De Bousquet PC are here to support Ontario workers. Whether you’re reviewing a contract or dealing with a workplace issue, we can help you understand your rights and your options.

The post Demoted at Work? Know When It’s Constructive Dismissal first appeared on De Bousquet Professional Corporation Blog.

A recent court case from British Columbia is changing how we look at this. And it could affect truckers across Canada — including Ontario.

What Happened in the Case

A driver named Boris Ursic worked for Country Lumber Ltd. for 14 years. He used his own company, owned his trucks, and even hired some drivers. But he only worked for Country Lumber — no one else.

One day, Country Lumber ended the relationship without giving him notice or severance pay.

Ursic took them to court — and he won.

The judge said Ursic was not really running an independent business. He was a dependent contractor — someone who looks self-employed on paper but is really working under a company’s control. The company was ordered to pay him 16 months of compensation.

What’s a Dependent Contractor?

You might not be an independent contractor if:

• You drive mostly or only for one company.
• That company tells you when to work and where to go.
• You have their logo or rules on your truck or paperwork.
• You don’t have other clients.
• You depend on them for your income.

Even if you are incorporated and send invoices — you might not be legally “independent.”

And if you are a dependent contractor, the company might owe you money if they let you go without notice.

Quick Checklist: Could This Be You?

• Do you work full-time for one company?
• Can you turn down loads?
• Can you take work from other companies?
• Who sets your schedule — you or them?
• Do you have your own customers?
• Do you wear their uniform, use their name, or follow their delivery rules?

If the company is calling the shots and you’re depending on them to make a living, you might have legal rights.

What About Ontario Truckers?

This B.C. case is a warning — and Ontario courts have similar rules.

The CRA and Ontario courts say it doesn’t matter what your contract calls you — what matters is how you actually work.

If you’re under the company’s control and can’t really act like your own boss, you may be legally entitled to notice or pay if they end things.

Why It Matters

Many truckers are told they are “independent” so companies can avoid paying certain benefits and severance. But if you’re treated like an employee, the law protects you — even if you’re incorporated or using your own truck.

Need Help?

Give our office a call. The lawyers at De Bousquet PC are here to support Ontario workers. Whether you’re reviewing a contract or dealing with a workplace issue, we can help you understand your rights and your options.

The post Truck Drivers: Told You’re an Independent Contractor? The Law Might Say Otherwise first appeared on De Bousquet Professional Corporation Blog.

Being terminated from your job is often a deeply emotional and stressful experience. While it is natural to feel upset or overwhelmed, it’s important to understand that employers are legally bound to treat employees with dignity and fairness during the termination process. Canadian courts have made it clear: how you are dismissed matters. If your employer handles your termination in an unduly harsh or insensitive manner—such as unnecessarily escorting you out the workplace—it could result in legal consequences for them.

Summary

The legal principle of good faith and fair dealing in employment terminations was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd. Within the Wallace damages context, we see Lee v. Windermere Manor Ltd., where the Ontario Court of Justice awarded additional damages after Ms. Lee, a long-time employee, was unnecessarily escorted out her workplace upon termination. The Court found no evidence that Ms. Lee posed any threat of disruption or damage to the employer’s business/property, and concluded the employer’s conduct was “callous and insensitive.” The takeaway is clear: if you’re terminated and unnecessarily escorted out of your work premises, you may be entitled to additional compensation for the way your dismissal was handled.

Good Faith & Fair Dealing

It goes without saying that when faced with a termination emotions are high. However, emotions do not negate an employers’ duty to conduct themselves in accordance with the “fair dealing” doctrine articulated in Wallace. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada notes at paragraph 95:

…to ensure that employees receive adequate protection, employers ought to be held to an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal, the breach of which will be compensated for by adding to the length of the notice period.”

Wallace is clear, employers cannot deviate from their duty of good faith and fair dealing, especially within the context of dismissals, as that is when an employee is most vulnerable.

Lee v Windermere Manor Ltd.

In Lee, the Ontario Court of Justice granted Wallace damages due to the circumstances surrounding Ms. Lee’s termination.

Ms. Lee was employed as a housekeeping supervisor in June 1996, and terminated on December 18, 1999. Ms. Lee’s termination was due to her breach of a policy manual forbidding smoking outside the designated smoking room, justifying a for cause dismissal. Additionally, evidence was lead with respect to Ms. Lee’s “personality conflicts with other staff, insubordination, and problems with” staff relations.

Wallace damages

There were several allegations made with respect to the Plaintiff’s sought Wallace damages. However, the trial Judge dispensed with the majority of the sought damages and focused on Ms. Lee being escorted to the front door following her termination.

The Court outlined the lack of evidence or viable inference regarding Ms. Lee causing a scene following her termination. Materially, Ms. Lee’s mother, who was also employed by the Defendant, was the only person in the lobby. Given the facts, the Court noted a lack of evidence to support a conceivable inference that Ms. Lee would cause a scene. Furthermore, there was no worry that Ms. Lee would damage the Defendant’s property. As result, the Court noted on a balance of probabilities that the escorting was “callous and insensitive treatment that cannot be considered fair dealing.”

Similar damages have been awarded in Pohl v. Hudson’s Bay Company, 2022 ONSC 5230 (CanLII) and Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter Ltd. v. Buchanan, 2010 BCSC 1650.

In Phol, the Court awarded Mr. Phol moral damages ($45,000.00) due to his employer’s breach of good faith and fair dealing inclusive of his wrongful dismissal and punitive damages ($149,662.50). The Court’s justified the moral damages for four reasons:

1. Walking Mr. Pohl out the door was found to be unduly insensitive, as he was a loyal employee for 28-years and was dismissed due to a nation-wide restructuring driven by economic considerations. As such, there was no misconduct and did not warrant the insensitive treatment;
2. The employer attempting to mislead Mr. Pohl with respect to a job offer prior to termination, which would have removed his statutory and common law notice entitlements should he have accepted;
3. Not paying Mr. Pohl his statutory minimums in a lump sum by the required time as per section 11(5) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000; and
4. Mr. Pohl’s employer failed to issue his Record of Employment (“ROE”) within 5-days after the interruption of his employment earnings, in contravention of section 19(3)(i) of the Employment Insurance Regulations SOR/96-332.

Looking to Kelowna, we see that the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the appeal regarding Wallace damages awarded to Mr. Buchanan in the amount of $8,500.00 for Kelowna’s breach of good faith. In a similar context, the Court held that being escorted off the work premises with no evidence of disruption or damage to property amounted to bad faith and was insensitive.

Takeaway from Lee, Pohl, and Kelowna

While the Court in Lee was openly hesitant with respect to entertaining the claim for additional damages under Wallace regarding Ms. Lee’s removal—specifically due to an employer’s right to “safeguard its business from disruptions caused by distraught fired employees.” The facts and the Court’s reasoning in these circumstances (non-disruption and no inference of Ms. Lee’s willingness to cause damage) gives rise to additional damages.

What we learn from Lee, Pohl, and Kelowna is that should you be escorted off your work premises following termination, the circumstances surrounding your removal could amount to additional damages under Wallace.

Should such a situation happen to you, remain calm and take note of the circumstances. No one deserves to be humiliated or paraded out of a work premises following termination, especially if you pose no threat of disruption or damage to an employer’s business. Should you be faced with a similar situation following your termination, please reach out to De Bousquet PC and we will ensure your best interests are protected.

The post Insensitive Treatment Will Cost Employers: Here is what you should know, if you are ever escorted out of your work premises following termination first appeared on De Bousquet Professional Corporation Blog.

New employment rules are rolling out in 2025 and 2026, aimed at closing gaps that have left many workers in the dark or under-protected. From extended sick leave to more honest job ads, here’s what’s new—and how it stacks up against what we had before.

1. More Time to Heal: Sick Leave Extended to 27 Weeks

Before: Most workers were only entitled to 3 unpaid sick days under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act (ESA). Longer leaves were rare and often dependent on COVID-era policies or employer discretion.

What’s New (Effective June 19, 2025):

If you’ve worked at your job for 13 weeks or more, you’ll now be entitled to up to 27 weeks of unpaid, job-protected medical leave. A doctor’s note confirming the length of leave is required.

Why it matters:

This change gives workers real breathing room to recover from serious illness without worrying about job security. It’s one of the most generous sick leave allowances in Canada.

2. No More Guesswork: Employers Must Disclose Job Terms in Writing
Before: Employers weren’t legally required to provide written job details before your first day, making it easier for misunderstandings—or outright bait-and-switch offers.

What’s New (Effective July 1, 2025):

If your employer has 25+ employees, they must give you key info in writing before or shortly after your first shift:

• Company name and contact info
• Your work location
• Starting wage or commission structure
• Pay schedule
• Expected hours of work

Why it matters:

You’ll now know exactly what you’re walking into. That’s a win for transparency and fair dealing.

3. Cleaner Workspaces: Washroom Standards Get Serious
Before: Employers were supposed to keep washrooms “clean”—but there was no requirement to prove it or keep records.

What’s New (Effective July 1, 2025):

Employers must now maintain cleaning logs for washrooms and provide them upon request. Cleanliness is no longer just a guideline—it’s enforceable.

Why it matters:

If you’ve ever worked in a place where the bathrooms were an afterthought, you’ll understand why this is long overdue.

4. Job Ads Must Tell the Whole Story

Before: Job postings didn’t need to include salary info and could demand “Canadian experience”. Employers weren’t obligated to follow up with candidates after their interviews.

What’s New (Effective January 1, 2026):

Job Postings from employers with 25+ staff must now include:

• Salary or salary range (limited to a $50,000 spread for jobs under $200K)
• Disclosure of AI used in screening applicants
• Whether the job is an actual vacancy
• Cannot require “Canadian experience”

Employers are obligated to:

• Respond to all interviewed applicants within 45 days
• Retain all job ad records for 3 years

Why it matters:

This makes hiring practices more transparent—especially important for immigrants, entry-level workers, and job seekers who’ve been ghosted too many times.

5. Gig Workers Finally Get Basic Protections

Before: If you worked for an app—delivering food, driving passengers, etc.—you weren’t covered by the ESA. No guaranteed minimum wage, no local dispute rights, no protection against retaliation.

What’s New (Effective July 1, 2025):

Under the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, gig workers now get:

• A right to know how pay is structured and how work is assigned
• Minimum wage guarantees
• The right to resolve disputes in Ontario
• Protection from being penalized for speaking up

Why it matters:

Just because your job runs through an app doesn’t mean you should be left without legal protections.

What You Should Do as an Employee

These aren’t just technical changes. They’re tools you can use to better understand—and defend—your rights at work. Here’s how to start:

• Keep a copy of your job offer and any written terms
• Don’t be afraid to ask questions—especially about pay and expectations
• Speak up if something feels off
• Share this info with coworkers who might not know that the law is changing

When to Get Legal Help.

Even with better laws, navigating workplace issues can be tricky. For example, in the case of Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc., the court ruled that one unenforceable clause in an employment contract could void the entire termination section—leading to much higher severance for the employee. Small contract details can have big consequences.

So if you’re being let go, pressured to sign something, or think your rights are being ignored—it’s worth getting legal advice.

Need Help?

Give our office a call. The lawyers at De Bousquet PC are here to support Ontario workers. Whether you’re reviewing a contract or dealing with a workplace issue, we can help you understand your rights and your options.

The post 5 Major Employment Law Changes Every Ontario Worker Should Know first appeared on De Bousquet Professional Corporation Blog.

The Problem: A Workplace Poisoned by Discrimination

Imagine this: you start a new job and, within weeks, it becomes clear that the workplace isn’t what it seemed. That’s exactly what happened to Ms. Tenthorey when she joined IMS Incorporated. She was subjected to inappropriate comments and behaviors from the CEO, including remarks like, “I wonder what you will look like in ten years.” Yes, really. Not only was this comment deeply offensive, but it also targeted her age and gender.

The problems didn’t stop there. The CEO routinely referred to younger female staff as “little girls” and gave preferential treatment to them while undermining Ms. Tenthorey’s professionalism and expertise. Despite receiving a pay raise for her excellent performance, she was abruptly terminated. The reason? According to the company, she was “too senior” for their needs—a thinly veiled excuse that the Tribunal agreed was code for age and sex discrimination.

The Fight: Taking a Stand Against Injustice

When Ms. Tenthorey came to us, she felt powerless. She’d been terminated unfairly, dismissed with vague and discriminatory reasoning, and left to pick up the pieces. But she wasn’t alone anymore. At De Bousquet PC, we believed her story and were determined to fight for her.

During the Human Rights Tribunal hearing, we presented compelling evidence that revealed the toxic culture at IMS. The CEO’s behavior, including angry outbursts and inappropriate comments, created what’s known as a “poisoned work environment.” Despite Ms. Tenthorey’s efforts to raise concerns with HR, nothing was done. The Tribunal agreed: IMS had failed her, and her age and gender were central to her mistreatment and termination.

The Victory: Justice for Ms. Tenthorey

After hearing the evidence, the Tribunal sided with Ms. Tenthorey. The decision was clear and decisive: IMS Incorporated had violated her rights under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. Here’s what the Tribunal awarded her:

• $13,000 in lost wages, covering the time she was out of work after being unfairly terminated.
• $25,000 for the harm to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect caused by the toxic and discriminatory environment.

These awards send a powerful message: no employer can get away with treating their staff unfairly based on age or gender. And no employee should have to suffer in silence.

Why This Case Matters to You

Ms. Tenthorey’s story isn’t just about one person—it’s about every worker who has ever felt dismissed, disrespected, or discriminated against. This case proves that when employees stand up for their rights, real change can happen. And when you have a team like De Bousquet PC in your corner, you’re never fighting alone.

Workplace discrimination can feel overwhelming, but justice is within reach. If you’re facing unfair treatment at work, we’re here to listen, support, and fight for you—just like we did for Ms. Tenthorey. Because everyone deserves a workplace where they’re valued, respected, and treated with dignity.

Ready to take the first step? Contact us today. Together, we’ll make your voice heard.

The post De Bousquet PC Wins Landmark Workplace Discrimination Case first appeared on De Bousquet Professional Corporation Blog.

Most people would confidently say no. They would also be completely wrong.

You are on your last month of maternity leave, and your employer contacted you to let you know that due to restructuring, unfortunately, your position has been eliminated. Congratulations, you have suffered a reprisal contrary to the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (the “ESA”). and should contact a lawyer immediately.

You are working at a warehouse, and they have run out of gloves. You verbally complain to your manager about this happening. A few weeks later, your hours have been reduced due to a slowdown in business. Congratulations, you have suffered a reprisal contrary to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1(the “OHSA”) and should contact a lawyer immediately.

What is a Reprisal?

A Reprisal is when an employer threatens, intimidates, penalizes or coerces an employee due to them engaging in a protected activity. There are four main parts to a reprisal.

Protected Activity

A Protected Activity sounds complex, but it is, in fact, extremely simple, and you probably do at least five every day. For example, telling your manager it is time for your break is a protected activity.

Almost all employees know that they have protections under the OHSA relating to workplace health and safety. There is an assumption that the OHSA only covers physical issues, such as providing PPE for working with dangerous chemicals. In fact, the OHSA covers every aspect of employment, from washroom breaks to bullying and harassment.

Similarly, there are numerous rights under the ESA that most employees do not know they have. For example, having your wages garnished to pay child support is a protected activity.

There are no magic words or forms required. Asking questions about your rights and making complaints both count as a protected activity. A media interview about working conditions is also engaging in a protected activity. It is extremely broad and covers everything relating to the scope of the ESA and OHSA, as well as their regulations.

Threaten, Intimidate, Penalize or Coerce

Pretty much any change to employment that is negative for the employee meets the requirement for a reprisal. This can be as large as termination or as small as giving them fewer shifts.

Connection

The protected activity and negative outcome are required to be connected. This sounds difficult to show, but is, in fact, almost always trivial. Two events that happen close to each other in time are assumed to be connected.

A surprising number of employers will also helpfully tell the employee the events are linked.

Due To

The fact is that an employer is never going to admit it committed a reprisal, and it would be nearly impossible to prove it did. Its actions will always be justified by something else.

This does not matter. The law recognizes the imbalance and imposes a “reverse onus” on the employer. This means that it is assumed the employer committed a reprisal, and it must prove it did not.

However, providing an alternative reason is not enough. The employer is not required to prove that it reduced your hours for a different reason than you complained. The employer is required to prove that its decision to reduce your hours was not in any way influenced by the fact you complained. This is the taint test.

What Does This Matter?

If it sounds like it would be near impossible for your employer to prove they did not commit a reprisal, you are correct. It is.

This is by design. The rights under the OHSA and ESA are so important that the law treats them as sacred. As held by the OLRB, a reprisal is not only an assault on the very integrity of these acts, it is an attempt to destabilize the constitutional order and the rule of law itself.[1]

Correspondingly, the Ontario Labour Relations Board is given expansive powers to fix the breach. Essentially, it can rewrite time. It can order your employer to rehire you, order your employer to pay back pay for all the time you were off, and order that it is as if your termination never happened.

If you do not get your job back, you get compensated for this, as well as your dismissal. The damages for your termination are effectively paid twice.

I’m Unionized though, None of This Applies for Me Right?

Wrong. Unlike almost everything else, where you are required to go through the grievance process, a unionized employee can hire their own lawyer and bring a reprisal claim under the OHSA.

I Work for a Bank/Airline/Railway, this Does Not Matter for Me, Right?

The Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2 also prohibits reprisals. If you are a federally regulated employee, such as a bank or airline employee, unionized or not, you can not only hire your own lawyer to bring a reprisal claim, the Canada Industrial Relations Board has the authority to order your employer to pay costs to cover a portion of your legal fees.

Why Contact De Bousquet?

Reprisals are inherently stressful and can undermine your trust in the laws that are meant to protect you. At De Bousquet, we understand the pain and frustration that a reprisal causes, and are here to help. We treat every client as a person, not a file number, and are focused on getting you the best holistic outcome. We pride ourselves on the immense trust our clients feel safe placing in us and taking on the stress of the case so you do not need to worry.

Contact us today.

[1] Fiorildo Tenace v Sense Appeal Brands Inc. (Sense Appeal Coffee Roasters), 2015 CanLII 49516 (ON LRB) at para 21.

The post Complained and Got Fired? Position Eliminated during Maternity Leave? You getting Paid is a Matter of Constitutional Importance. first appeared on De Bousquet Professional Corporation Blog.

One example is the case of Kochkina v. The Ivy Social Club Inc. (2024). While Ms. Kochkina received $35,000 for enduring harassment and retaliation, this award falls far short of the damages she could have pursued had she brought her case to the Superior Court of Justice (SCJ). With delays at the HRTO stretching to 4-10 years, this case highlights the importance of obtaining legal advice early to navigate the best path to justice.

The Facts of the Case

Ms. Kochkina worked part-time as a bartender at night after her regular job to support her family. Initially, her job seemed like a practical solution to her financial needs, but things quickly turned sour. Her employer, E.G., subjected her to escalating harassment, starting with seemingly simple remarks like “pretty girl” or “man-eater,” which would leave her confused. These comments might sound trivial, but they alone could constitute workplace sexual harassment.

Over time, E.G.’s behavior became overtly aggressive and threatening, making Ms. Kochkina feel unsafe—especially when alone with her employer. After many repeated attempts to be alone with Ms. Kochkina, the employer realized she was not going to give in to his advances. With this frustration in mind, the situation reached a boiling point, and E.G. shouted, in front of patrons and staff, “You wouldn’t f*** me, so you can get the f*** out!** Interpreting this as her termination, Ms. Kochkina went to the manager’s office to collect her final pay. When she questioned the amount that was owed, E.G. became more hostile and tried to take a swing at her.

Fearful for her safety, she reported the incident to the police. However, no charges were laid due to a lack of evidence. For many, this might have been the end—a painful but all-too-common example of systemic failure. But Ms. Kochkina filed a complaint with the HRTO to seek justice. Unfortunately, in this case, the platform it was brought to did not utilize the awards she could have been receiving.

Was $35,000 Enough? Absolutely Not.

Ms. Kochkina’s story is a cautionary tale. While she courageously pursued her rights through the HRTO, the result was neither timely nor fully compensatory. She filed her Application in April 2019. The decision was rendered on November 5, 2024, over five and a half years later.

The tribunal’s delays left her waiting for years for a decision that awarded her $35,000—an amount that, while notable, pales in comparison to what the Courts likely would have awarded for such egregious conduct that she had faced at her workplace. In cases similar to Ms. Kochkina’s, Courts have awarded between $35,000 to $100,000 in damages solely for the mental harm suffered by the employee. Courts also typically award an additional $10,000 to $50,000 in punitive damages to punish the employer for their wrongful conduct.

The Courts not only provide a broader scope for damages, including punitive damages and potential compensation for lost wages, but they also offer a more robust avenue for justice. The HRTO, despite its mandate to uphold human rights, is plagued by delays and administrative inefficiencies that fail to adequately serve victims and will often undercompensate victims.

The Impact of Legal Advice: What Could Have Been

Had Ms. Kochkina sought legal counsel at the outset, she likely would have been advised to bring her case in Court. Superior Courts have the authority to impose higher financial penalties on employers for outrageous conduct like that of her employer, E.G., who publicly harassed and retaliated against her. The Court process also includes mandatory settlement considerations and adjudicates cases faster than the HRTO, sparing victims from the emotional toll of years-long delays.

Part of the reason for this is that ignoring the HRTO very rarely results in any sort of consequences and so will intentionally delay proceedings. In Ms. Kochkina’s case, the employer failed to respond to the HRTO or show up at conferences and hearings for over a year, with the HRTO repeatedly granting extensions to the absent employer.

In sharp contrast, failing to show up to a Court proceeding at a minimum results in the Court ordering the employer to pay an amount of costs to the employee for wasting everyone’s time. Ignoring the Court can also result in the Sheriff showing up to seize property to pay outstanding orders or to arrest someone to force attendance. Employers take Court cases very seriously.

This case underscores a critical point: legal advice is not optional—it’s essential. Understanding the nuances of where and how to assert your rights can significantly influence the outcome of your case. By choosing the wrong forum, victims risk leaving substantial damages on the table.

What Employees Must Know

Time Matters

Delays of 4-6 years at the HRTO are not just frustrating—they’re harmful. Victims endure prolonged uncertainty and emotional strain. Exploring alternatives like the SCJ can save both time and emotional energy.

The Right Forum Maximizes Compensation

The Courts offer a broader scope for damages, including compensation for lost wages and punitive damages designed to punish egregious conduct. Choosing the HRTO, in this case, meant settling for a fraction of the possible recovery.

Legal Advice is Critical

A knowledgeable lawyer can assess your situation and guide you to the most effective legal pathway. They will ensure that your claim is presented in a forum that maximizes both efficiency and compensation.

Why Your Silence Hurts Everyone

When you stay silent, you don’t just lose out on the justice you deserve—you also allow toxic workplaces to thrive. Employers who harass or discriminate count on their victims feeling too scared or powerless to fight back. By taking action, you’re not just standing up for yourself—you’re setting a precedent that can protect others in the future.

Key Takeaways: Don’t Settle for Less

Ms. Kochkina’s case serves as a powerful reminder: securing justice requires informed choices. Victims of harassment and discrimination should always Consult a lawyer early to evaluate all legal options.

Justice delayed is justice denied—and in the case of the HRTO, justice is too often delayed. By seeking timely legal advice, you can ensure that your rights are fully protected and that you receive the remedies you deserve. The lawyers at De Bousquet understand your pain and are here to support you.

Don’t let systemic failures undermine your fight for justice. Take the right step today and give our office a call.

The post Workplace Harassment and Discrimination: Why Staying Silent Isn’t an Option first appeared on De Bousquet Professional Corporation Blog.

This isn’t just a story of red tape. It’s a story of justice denied. For regular people like you and me, navigating the HRTO is no longer about fairness—it’s about survival in a system that feels designed to push you out.

The Numbers Don’t Lie: The System is Failing You

Let’s start with a shocking fact: 93% of cases at the HRTO in 2023/24 were dismissed without a hearing. Most of these dismissals weren’t because the claims lacked merit—they happened because the system makes it nearly impossible for everyday people to meet its demands.

Here’s how it works: After you file your claim, it often sits untouched for years. When the HRTO finally looks at it, they send you a letter demanding you submit new legal documents. If you don’t respond perfectly—or on time—your case is thrown out. Many people don’t even know what these letters mean or how to respond, especially without a lawyer to guide them.

A Waiting Game You Can’t Win

Even if you manage to avoid these procedural pitfalls, the wait times are crushing. Cases filed in 2014 are only now being decided. That’s ten years for people who needed help yesterday. For most of us, waiting years to resolve a discrimination case isn’t just frustrating—it’s devastating. The longer it takes, the harder it is to move forward with your life.

Employers, landlords, and businesses also know how long a case will take and that almost all cases are dismissed without a hearing. A HRTO claim is less worrisome than a parking ticket.

Why the HRTO Feels Impossible to Navigate

The HRTO was supposed to be user-friendly, especially for people without lawyers. But that’s not the reality anymore. The process has become so complicated that most people can’t manage it on their own.

Instead of giving you a chance to tell your story in person, the tribunal now demands detailed written submissions full of legal language and technical arguments. This isn’t something most people are equipped to handle—especially if they’re already dealing with the emotional stress of discrimination.

And if you make a small mistake? Your case could be dismissed as “abandoned,” even if it’s the HRTO itself that left you waiting for years.

What Happens Without Representation

Here’s the harsh truth: 80% of people filing claims at the HRTO don’t have a lawyer. These self-represented applicants are the ones who struggle the most. They’re expected to meet impossible deadlines, write complex legal documents, and navigate a system that feels like a maze—all while dealing with the trauma of discrimination.

Without legal help, many people give up entirely. Their cases are dismissed, not because they didn’t experience discrimination, but because the system is stacked against them.

Why You Need a Lawyer

The HRTO claims to be there for everyone, but the reality is that it’s become a place where human rights cases go to die. This isn’t just a problem for those filing claims—it’s a wake-up call for anyone who might one day need the system.

Having a lawyer changes everything, but not for the reason you may think. While a lawyer knows how to navigate the HRTO’s complex rules and handle tight deadlines, they cannot make a broken tribunal function. However, lawyers also know all the better options you have for your case.

For example, you are harassed at work due to your race. You could file with the HRTO and wait a decade for a possible resolution.

However, employment issues can also result in a Court case. Not only will you likely be able to claim much more in a Court case, you do not lose anything as you can add human rights violations to a Court claim. It is also a far more serious matter.

This is why it is so important to contact a lawyer before you do anything so you know your options.

Don’t Let the System Silence You

If you’ve been discriminated against, the last thing you should worry about is how to jump through hoops to have your case heard. You deserve justice, and we’re here to help you get it.

Without proper representation, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and defeated. But with the right legal team, you don’t have to face this uphill battle alone.

At De Bousquet, we specialize in making sure employees get what they are owed. We understand the legal system and the options available. We can navigate its complexities to give you the best chance at success. Don’t let the system push you out. Let us take on the system for you.

If you’re struggling with a human rights issue, don’t wait. Contact us today to get the support you need. Justice may feel out of reach, but with the right help, it doesn’t have to be.

The post Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal: Why Justice Feels Out of Reach first appeared on De Bousquet Professional Corporation Blog.

As with everything to do with your employment, the best thing you can do to protect yourself is speak to an employment lawyer before doing anything. The case of Wilds v. 1959612 Ontario Inc. illustrates why getting legal advice is the best investment you can make.

The Case at a Glance

Barbara Wilds, an executive assistant, was terminated after a short tenure with Gibson Building Supplies. After she refused to sign the termination letter, Gibson failed to pay her entitlements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), ignored her requests for a reference letter, and left valid business expenses unpaid. Despite the repeated demands from both her and her lawyer that the company obey the law, Gibson only offered minimal severance payments, contingent on her signing a full and final release. Due to this, Ms. Wilds was forced to take legal action to enforce her rights.

Despite Ms. Wilds losing at trial on both the notice period sought and claims for damages for mental distress, she was able to go from being offered $3,773.08 to being awarded $19,923.85, plus interest, a five-fold increase of the amounts payable due to her termination. She was also awarded $6,000.00 in costs.[2] The Court’s decisions highlight how favourable the law is towards employees.

1. Your Termination Clause is Almost Certainly Unenforceable

• Ms. Wilds’ employment contract contained “termination without cause” and “termination with cause” provisions, but both violated the ESA and were deemed unenforceable. The “termination with cause” clause allowed Gibson to dismiss employees for reasons falling below the ESA’s standard. Because these provisions did not meet legal standards, the Court awarded Ms. Wilds two (2) months of pay in lieu of notice.

2. Compliance with the ESA is Not Optional

• Employees’ Right to Basic Entitlements: At a minimum, every employee is owed their statutory entitlements on termination, including accrued vacation pay, reimbursements, and reasonable notice. By refusing to pay Ms. Wilds her due entitlements, Gibson violated the ESA, leading to an additional award of damages.

3. Business Expenses Must be Paid

• Business Expenses Must Be Reimbursed: Ms. Wilds incurred work-related expenses approved by Gibson, but these went unpaid, even after multiple requests made by her and her lawyer. Employers must reimburse approved expenses, even after an employee has been let go. This decision reinforces that employees are entitled to get back what they spent on work-related expenses, no matter the timing of their termination.

4. No Reference Letter = A Bad Day for an Employer in Court

• Reference Letters Are Important: A reference letter can be crucial in finding new employment. Ms. Wilds requested a reference letter to assist in her job search, but Gibson refused, even during litigation. This decision backfired on Gibson, as the Court noted the refusal negatively affected Ms. Wilds’ job search efforts.

5. Employers Will be Punished for Bad Faith Conduct

• Don’t “Play Hardball”: Gibson’s failure to meet its statutory obligations and refusal to provide basic documentation—like a reference letter—was an unnecessarily harsh approach that ultimately cost them. The Court awarded punitive damages for Gibson’s marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour. This sends a strong message: Courts look unfavourably at employers who fail to comply with the law and their duties.

What Now? Tips for Employees

This case provides some practical takeaways for employees dealing with employment issues:

• Employment Law is Technical: As shown in the decision, employment law is an area of law where the exact phrasing of a document can be the difference between $4,000 and $20,000. You need a properly qualified human being who can understand the law and advise you on these types of documents. An online calculator could have easily undervalued the case by 50% by not including possible awards for bad faith.
• Save Everything: If a document could be relevant later for your employment, save both a hard copy and a digital copy. In this case, the total 407 expenses were $46.93. With low amounts, there is a temptation not to bother including them in the claim. Ms. Wilds chose to claim them, and by saving her 407 ETR receipts, she was able to get paid for them.
• When You Are Right, You Still Need to Fight: Gibson admitted that Ms. Wilds was entitled to be paid amounts under the ESA and expense reimbursement and that these amounts had not been paid due to a clerical error. It then continued to not pay Ms. Wilds. This is why you need someone who can enforce your rights in Court – a lawyer.

Protecting Your Rights After Termination

The Wilds v. 1959612 Ontario Inc. decision is a reminder that the Courts protect employees’ rights and punish employers who act unreasonably or in bad faith. It is also a reminder that if you’ve been terminated, talk to a lawyer. Ms. Wilds chose to do so and, despite losing on various aspects at trial, still was awarded almost $20,000 plus $6,000 for costs. While this is only an example of one case, and your case may be different, it shows the value that talking to a lawyer can provide.

Facing Unfair Treatment? Contact Us. Job loss is difficult enough without unnecessary obstacles. If you’re struggling with an employer who isn’t following the law or have questions about your termination or employment contract, our team can help you secure the fair treatment and compensation you deserve. Don’t let an employer’s “hardball” tactics go unchallenged—reach out today to learn about your rights.

[1] Wilds v. 1959612 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONSC 3452

[2] Wilds v. 1959612 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONSC 4632

The post Five Reasons Why You Are Owed More Money on Termination Than Offered first appeared on De Bousquet Professional Corporation Blog.