duty to mitigate

Employee Rejection of Comparable New Job Backfires

Employee Rejection of Comparable New Job Backfires

The purpose of severance is to bridge the gap while a person is unemployed and looking for a new job. As we often tell clients, severance is not intended to provide a windfall. When a person is dismissed from a job, they have an obligation to make reasonable efforts to offset the losses stemming from their dismissal (referred to as the “duty to mitigate”). In the right circumstances, this may include accepting an alternate offer of employment with the same employer or pursuing a reasonable opportunity that has been brought to their attention.

Time to Expand the Search? The Duty to Mitigate in a Remote Work World

Time to Expand the Search? The Duty to Mitigate in a Remote Work World

Individuals in Ontario have a duty to mitigate their loss of employment when seeking damages for wrongful (or constructive) dismissal. In practical terms this means that while employees may be able to seek damages from their former employer (to put them in the position they would have been had they received adequate notice of termination), they must make reasonable efforts to replace their lost income by looking for, and accepting, other comparable work.  

Independent contractors have a duty to mitigate loss of fixed-term work

Independent contractors have a duty to mitigate loss of fixed-term work

We have continually cautioned readers about the use of fixed-term employment contracts. The reason is simple: should fixed-term contracts be ended early, there is a high probability that dismissed employees may be entitled to payment for the balance of the remaining term.

When is a work commute too long to be reasonable?

When is a work commute too long to be reasonable?

Generally speaking, a dismissed employee has an obligation to take reasonable steps to find, and accept, new comparable employment. Whether it is reasonable to accept new employment will always be a contextual assessment taking into consideration: whether the work is within the individual’s skillset; whether the role is at a similar level of seniority (i.e., Director, Vice-President etc.); whether the compensation is approximately the same; and whether the job is within a reasonable distance from where the individual lives. On this last point, it is generally acknowledged by the courts that it is not reasonable to expect an individual to move cities to accept a new job.

Paul Willetts Speaks at 6-Minute Employment Lawyer

Paul Willetts Speaks at 6-Minute Employment Lawyer

On June 18, 2020, Vey Willetts’ lawyer Paul Willetts presented at the Law Society of Ontario’s annual 6-Minute Employment Lawyer Conference. The event, which this year was held virtually, featured over 20 speakers and touched on a broad range of workplace issues.

When is Retraining a Reasonable Approach to Mitigating Loss of Employment?

When is Retraining a Reasonable Approach to Mitigating Loss of Employment?

As we have discussed in previous articles, if you are fired from work and decide to seek severance, you are required to take reasonable steps to find alternate comparable employment. This obligation is referred to as the “duty to mitigate” the loss of your employment.

Putting on the Brakes: Ontario courts are limiting the scope of post-dismissal mitigatory earnings

Putting on the Brakes: Ontario courts are limiting the scope of post-dismissal mitigatory earnings

A long-standing rule of wrongful dismissal cases is that employees who seek additional severance are required to look for new work post-dismissal. Employers are only obligated to pay monies for actual loss incurred beyond any statutory entitlement period.