Menu
Call Us Today
416-616-5628
Blog

Are Covid-19 Related Lay-Offs Constructive Dismissals?

By Employment Law

On account of the ongoing Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic (the “Pandemic”), on March 17, 2020, the Government of Ontario declared a state of emergency under section 7.0.1 (1) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. As a result of this declaration and its associated orders, several establishments and businesses were legally required to close. Further, on March 23, 2020, the Government of Ontario ordered the mandatory closure of all non-essential workplaces, effective March 24, 2020 (the “Second Order”). The forced closure of non-essential businesses has been in effect for over a month, with the possibility of being extended as…

Read More

Employment in the Time of COVID-19: Federal Measures

By Employment Law

Many employers are suffering from loss of business due to the impact of COVID-19. As a result, many people are finding themselves without work, either due to being laid off or terminated. Governments worldwide are attempting to lessen the economic impact of the pandemic. In Canada, the Federal government has taken several steps with a view to helping Canadians who are being impacted economically by the novel coronavirus. These include measures designed to help employees experiencing a loss of income due to COVID-19, and to support employers with a view to preventing layoffs. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit The Canada…

Read More

Can Professional Associations Mandate Their Members’ Speech?

By Employment Law

Most professionals like engineers, doctors, pharmacists and lawyers are governed by professional associations. These professional associations actively engage in regulating their respective licensees to ensure a minimum level of competency with a view to protecting the public interest. Associations are also empowered to protect members of the public by maintaining the capacity to discipline and sanction their members. For instance, the Law Society of Ontario regulates the more than 50,000 lawyers who practice in the province and can investigate and sanction lawyers who have been found to violate the Society’s Rules of Professional Conduct or its By-Laws. Accordingly, these professional…

Read More

The Gig-Economy, Inter jurisdictional Working Arrangements, and the Choice of Law

By Employment Law

One of the emerging trends in Canadian workplaces is the increasing number of flexible working arrangements. The rise of online services, and gig-economy apps like Uber and Doordash, has afforded many Canadians the ability to set their own hours. These work arrangements occur through independent contracting agreements that are either national or international in scope. For example, an Ontario corporation could enter into an exclusive distributor agreement with a British Columbia resident while an Alberta resident could enter into a service agreement with a California tech company. These inter-provincial and international arrangements create their own unique legal challenges, especially since…

Read More

What Happens When Just Cause for Termination Is Discovered After an Employee Has Already Been Dismissed?

By Employment Law

Whether someone is terminated with or without just cause can have significant financial implications. Where an employer correctly terminates an employee for just cause, it is not required to provide the employee with any notice of termination or payment in lieu thereof, unlike where the dismissal is without cause. However, the employer does not necessarily have to get it right at the time that the dismissal is communicated to the employee. After-acquired cause refers to just cause for termination that is discovered after an employee has already been dismissed. Although it gives employers some room for error at the time…

Read More

“Consideration” and Employment Law – How Archaic Legal Principles are Still Relevant to Very Modern Legal Problems

By Employment Law

An employment contract is the central document that binds both parties, by setting out their legal obligations and responsibilities. When a dispute arises, a judge analyzes the contract to try and determine what the parties agreed to. A contract of employment can exist between parties, even if it has not been reduced to writing. After-all, if the employee is performing work, and the employer is paying for the work, there is an agreement between the parties. Employment relationships that are not reduced to writing are often more favourable to the employee, especially because in most cases, a written contract serves…

Read More

Is Your Employer Allowed to Lay You Off?

By Employment Law

Employers lay off their employees for a variety of reasons. Whether it be due to lack of work, financial issues, or some other reason, the impact is still the same for employees – loss of work. However, many people do not know whether they can do anything in response to being laid off. This post will outline some of the basic principles relating to layoffs and how employees can respond. What Is a Layoff? Many people believe that a layoff is the same thing as a termination. This is not the case – a layoff refers to an employer reducing…

Read More

Are Terminated Employees Entitled to Unvested Stock Options That Would Have Vested During the Notice Period?

By Employment Law

The answer: Yes. How did we get here? The answer lies in the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s evolving approach to this issue in recent years. A terminated employee’s right to exercise stock options during the reasonable notice period has been an increasingly litigated issue that has been rife with uncertainty. Employers often take the position that the language used in these employee incentive agreements results in their cancellation on the date of termination. Unsurprisingly, employees assert entitlement to all non-discretionary remuneration that was a fundamental part of their compensation. In 2004, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released a…

Read More

Don Cherry被 Sportsnet 解雇——员工发表有争议的言论会被解雇吗?

By 官话

2019年11月9日,曲棍球界的传奇分析师Don Cherry在电视节目Coach’s Corner中评论道: “移民们从加拿大退伍军人的牺牲中获益,但很少佩戴罂粟花来感谢他们。” Don Cherry的即兴政治评论最终成了压垮骆驼的最后一根稻草。两天后的11月11日,Sportsnet总裁Bart Yabsley宣布解雇Mr. Cherry。 Mr. Cherry的命运引出了一个议题: Sportsnet的做法是否有法律依据? 雇员能否因发表有争议的言论而被解雇? Mr. Cherry是否因故被解雇尚不得而知。 因故解雇和无故解雇的区别对雇主和雇员的财务都有重要影响。 Don Cherry 受雇于 Sportsnet并签订了一系列定期合同。 最近的两个合约,包括最近终止的这一个,都是一年期合约。 Don Cherry和Sportsnet经常在合同到期时重新谈判,因为一旦合同到期,他并不能保证继续为Sportsnet工作。 他的合同其实很可能被视为的固定期限合同。固定期限合同的雇员被无故解雇时(即非因重大违约而终止合同),他们通常有权获得合同所欠的全部金额。 但是,法院发现有时裁定是固定期限劳动合同实际上是无固定期合同。 尽管Don Cherry的情况可能性不大,但如果他的合同被认定是无固定限期的,他将有权获得更多赔偿。 在普通法下,永久雇员被推定应得到合理通知期或代通知金,并有权获得构成其总薪酬方案下的所有应付款项。 因此,被“无故”解雇的员工有权获得在通知期内获得包括福利、未付奖金、销售佣金、退休计划供款和股票期权等在内的所有薪酬。 因故被解雇,雇主无须向雇员提供固定期限合同所规定的权利,对于无固定期限合同的雇员,雇主则无须提供普通法规定的解雇通知或代通知金。 这种区别使得因故解雇对雇主来说是一个诱人的选择,他们很容易陷入一有不当行为就立即解雇员工的诱惑。然而,因故解雇是一种严厉的解决方案,雇主必须明智而谨慎地使用。如果不恰当使用或该解雇没有达到必要程度的正当理由,可能导致雇主自己承担重大责任,除了支付因违反合同或普通法通知的损害赔偿外,还可能支付解雇对雇员造成的精神损害赔偿。虽然在确定雇主何时可以合法地以正当理由解雇雇员方面并没有严格的规定,Regina v. Arthur一案明确提出了一项经常被引用的法律检测标准。 如雇员有严重不当行为、习惯性玩忽职守、能力不足,或有与职责不符的行为,或损害雇主的业务,或本质上故意不服从雇主的命令,雇主有权依法立即解雇该员工。 长久以来,法院已经为因故解雇规定了某些符合 Arthurs 测试的理由。 这些理由包括不诚实、无能、不服从领导、酗酒、性骚扰、犯罪行为、违反信托义务和违反员工职责。 但是,只有最严重的不当行为才会被视为解雇员工的“理由”。 审查重点为雇员是否因不当行为导致雇佣关系破裂。 此外,在评估是否存在解雇原因时,雇主必须考量员工的整个工作经历以及任何减轻因素。 法院在确定雇主是否有理由时使用的其他相关合法因素,包括: 雇员是否曾收到警告; 雇员是否知道其工作处于危险之中 雇员的行为是否被雇主忽视或原谅; 雇主是否曾纵容其他雇员的类似行为;  雇员为雇主工作时长。 鉴于事件的发展和解雇方式过于武断,可以肯定地说,Mr. Cherry 没有收到解雇通知。 这意味着他要么被因故解雇,要么是附有最低解雇通知期限的无故解雇,为此他会得到一笔数目可观的遣散费。鉴于他的公众知名度, 即使他因为某种原因被解雇,Sportsnet也可以通过提供某种形式的遣散费来切断与他的关系。毕竟,在某些情况下,最好使用天鹅绒手套来打出致命一击。 Mr. Cherry的特殊身份意味着,这种待遇是特例而不是惯例. 事实上,如果他因故被解雇,就必须分析和考虑前面提到的几个因素。首先,鉴于Mr. Cherry曾有发表政治不正确言论的历史,因此, Sportsnet 对其之前的轻率行为的反应将与解雇密切相关。如果 Sportsnet 从未过谴责Mr. Cherry ,这意味着Sportsnet对其行为的宽恕,这将使因故解雇很难立住脚;此外,Mr. Cherry是否收到了一系列不断升级的谴责和警告,这些谴责和警告是否明确表明,进一步的有争议的言论可能会成为解雇的理由,这将使Sportsnet 有理由解雇他;同样相关的因素还包括 Sportsnet 的内部政策和程序。多次违反重大政策或单次违反重要政策,只要政策合理,均可作为正当理由解雇员工。由于Mr. Cherry是在工作期间发表的上述评论,这也可能是他被解雇的正当理由,因为Mr. Cherry是该公司的一个代表人物。他的言论直接影响了公司的声誉和公众地位。

Read More

负绩效会影响在合理通知期内员工的奖金吗?

By 官话

众所周知,如果员工无故被解雇,而合同内容未包含将合同终止时的权利限制在法定最低限度的条款时,则该员工应获得合理的解雇通知期或代通知金。 该规定的法律术语叫做“普通法通知”. 普通法上的通知期, 是法院确定被解雇雇员为获得另一份类似的工作而需要的一段合理时间。一般来说,每服务一年,通知期为一个月。通知期可以根据案件Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd.中确立的Bardal 原则上下波动。依据Bardal原则,参考工作性质、雇员的工龄、雇员的年龄和有无其他工作机会来决定是否给予雇员更长的合理通知期。 很多员工不知道的是,合理的代通知金并不局限于基本工资。作为一项法律原则,合理的代通知金是为了使雇员处于雇主给予充分通知期的相同地位。如雇员在合理的通知期内已收到款项,这意味着他收到了代通知金应付金额。雇员有权获得其在受雇期间应得的的所有非酌情收入,包括奖金、福利、销售佣金、退休计划缴款和股票期权。 非酌情奖金 当合同条款将非酌情奖金明确限制在雇员劳动合同终止时是否有权获得奖金时,代通知金就会产生不确定性。一些“勤奋”的雇主会规定或约定,禁止向即将离职员工支付其在合理的通知期内应得的非酌情奖金。对于这些争议条款,法院一直在试图寻找统一原则。这种混乱促使加拿大最高法院于2019年10月就该问题听取了上诉。该裁定结果尚未公布。 与此同时,安大略上诉法院对Paquette v. TeraGo网络公司的判决被广泛认为是处理该问题的引导性案例。法院设立了一个由两部分组成测试标准,以确定雇员是否有权获得他们在合理通知期间应该获得的奖金。 奖金是雇员补偿方案的一个不可分割的组成部分,从而引发普通法上的损害赔偿而不是奖金? 与此分析相关的因素包括: 是否每年都获得奖金(尽管金额不一定相同); 发放奖金的目的是否为了保持与其他雇主的竞争力; 奖金是否曾经被授予,雇主是否从未对雇员行使过酌情权; 奖金是否构成员工整体薪酬的重要组成部分。 如果是,在奖金计划中是否有规定限制员工在通知期内获得代替奖金的损害赔偿的普通法权利。 过去定期提供的固定数额的非酌情奖金被认为是雇用合同的组成部分,应包括在计算代替合理通知的薪酬中。此外,在第2步中,法院要求合同就此问题的表述清晰明了,旨在限制雇员的普通法权利。 合理通知期内的表现 一些狡猾的雇主辩称,被解雇的员工无权获得奖金,因为他们在解雇前的表现欠佳,如果他们在合理的通知期内继续工作,他们不会得到奖金。 提出这一论点的雇主基本以败诉收场。法院通常都站在员工一边,裁定员工应在合理通知期内获得奖金。法院在做出有利于雇员的裁决时会考虑了若干因素,最常见因素是雇员在被解雇前几年是否收到了奖金。 判例 在Schultz v. Canada Lands Company CLC Limited一案中,雇主辩称,即使Mr. Schultz得到合理通知,根据奖金政策,他在该期间也不符合领取奖金的资格。这表明,得到部分满意(或更差)评价的员工没有资格获得奖金。他们推测Mr. Schultz会得到较差的评价,因此没有资格获得奖金。法院认为这一论断存在几个问题。 首先,Mr. Schultz从未被告知这些限制标准。他的聘书只表明他有资格获得高达工资25%的奖金, 并没有向他提出任何限制性的标准。其次,Mr. Schultz也从来没有得到过 “部分符合预期” 的评价。在上一次的绩效评估中,Mr. Schultz得到了 “成功” 的总体评价。法院认为,认定他必然会获得阻止他获得奖金的评级是推测性的。此外,最重要的是,有证据表明,Mr. Schultz在任职期间每年都会得到奖金。因此,法院驳回了雇主的主张,并裁定雇员因奖金损失而判给他赔偿金。 在Eberle V. Sunhills Mining Limited Partnership一案中,法院裁定该雇员有权获得奖金。雇主提到了绩效问题和目标水平,主张应该限制支付给员工的奖金。法院承认,虽然在解雇前不久有过负面评价,但很难看出其将对 Mr.Eberle 的绩效水平的评估产生影响。 此外,它与前几年的绩效评估不一致。

Read More

“对价”和《就业法》——古老的法律原则如何依然与当代法律问题相关

By 官话

雇佣合同是约束劳资双方的核心文件,它约定了双方的权利与义务。 当争议发生时,法官通过分析合同内容来决断是非曲直。 雇佣合同即使未以书面形式出现,依然具有法律效力。如果员工进行了工作,雇主支付了工资,那么双方之间就形成了事实合同关系。 非书面劳动合同通常对员工更有利,在大多数情况下,书面合同用于限制员工在劳动合同终止时的权利。 众所周知,法律层面上并不存在一个单独的类别叫做就业法。但是,合同法的普通原则和判例适用于劳动合同或以提供服务换取劳动报酬的人(即雇员)。法院渐渐地地形成了适用于雇佣协议的合同法,并以此对大多数劳资关系中典型的严重失衡的议价能力问题作出解释。一个很好的例子是法庭经常使用“对价”和“新对价”等词语来保护员工免受雇主因一时兴起对他们的就业条件造成的根本性改变。 对价与新对价 对价是指流向另一方的利益的法律术语。 为使合同有效并具有执行力,每一方都必须获得利益或对价。 如果雇主寻求更改雇佣合同或增加新条款,雇员必须获得“新的”对价,或得到新福利,即之前不具有的利益。 最常见的新对价形式是加薪。 尽管对价的概念可以追溯到几个世纪以前,在如何从法律上界定雇佣关系的变化时其依然非常重要。 雇主实施变革 雇员为公司工作一段时间后,当雇主试图增加强制执行保密或竞业禁止条款时,问题出现了。虽然雇主可能认为他们有权增加这样的条款,但法院一直坚持雇员在该条款中应获得新对价的观点。多数情况下,法官会认为受到质疑的事后限制性协议是不可执行的,因为雇员在签署这些协议时,除了他们已有的权利外,没有得到任何东西。 另一个例子是,当雇主和员工更新雇佣协议时,雇主试图通过实施援引《就业标准法》的法定最低限度来限制雇员依据普通法的解雇通知权利。 在 Holland v Hostopia 案中,2003 年 5 月 13 日,Hostopia 根据的长达两页纸邀请函所载的内容聘用了 Holland。这封邀请函没有提及上诉人Holland有权获得终止通知。 大约 9 个月后,2004 年 2 月 18日,上诉人Holland收到了一份长达六页纸的就业协议,他于 2004 年 3 月 8 日签署了该协议。安大略省上诉法院裁定该协议因缺乏新的对价而不具执行力。 如果没有新的对价,就业协议不能取代最初的邀请函所包含的合理通知的默示条款。  

Read More
Scroll To Top