People quit their jobs at various times and for various reasons. Often, when a worker quits his/her job they provide their employer with a written letter or an email confirming their decision to resign on a specified future date with the intention of continuing to work until that date.
The decision to terminate an individual’s employment is not an easy one. At times, however, whether due to economic pressures, or poor performance, it may nevertheless be necessary.
The process your organization follows when carrying out a termination of employment is important. It can have a big impact on the affected individual and, if done carefully, can reduce the potential risk of liability to your organization.
The legal doctrine of frustration of contract is well known to employment lawyers but its application is not all that intuitive to the average employer or employee. In the recent case of Hoekstra v. Rehability Occupational Therapy Inc., 2019 ONSC 562, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to revisit this doctrine and opine as to whether an employee, as compared to an employer, can ever assert frustration to end an employment relationship.
We are not long into 2019 and yet one thing already seems clear – the law concerning employment contract termination clauses will continue to be the focus of a great deal of litigation in Ontario. In just the past few months alone, new decisions from the Superior Court have helped to advance the law and provide further guidance to employers on proper drafting of termination clauses.
In a previous blog entry, we wrote about the laws surrounding secret recordings in the workplace. As we cautioned: “[b]efore creating such recordings, be sure to think carefully about the necessity of the action and check whether any workplace policies may be engaged.”
Summary judgment can be an invaluable tool for individuals who lose their job. Unlike the traditional litigation route, trudging labouriously through mediation and discoveries to trial, it allows for expedient and cost-effective resolution of straightforward employment disputes.
Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure provides for summary judgement "where there is no genuine issue requiring a trial." Last year, following amendments to the rule, the Supreme Court in Hryniak v. Mauldin revisited its application and confirmed that it "must be granted whenever there is no genuine issue requiring a trial."
One of the most common complaints employment lawyers hear from workers who have just lost their jobs is that they don't know why they were fired. Many become even more aggravated when they ask for a reason and are told 'we don't have to give you one.' Unsurprisingly, this type of response can often result in the now ex-employee imagining all kinds of innovative rationales as to explain their dismissal.
Pursuant to the Employment Standards Act, which applies to most Ontario employers, there is no requirement to tell dismissed employees' why they are being fired. Accordingly, 'we don't have to tell you' can be a valid response .
It is pretty rare that an employee will receive a severance package worth more than 2-years of their salary. In fact, it is generally agreed that there is an informal '24 month cap' on the amount of pay that a dismissed employee will receive in severance.
That said, there are exceptions to every rule. A recent case from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Markoulakis v. SNC Lavalin Inc., illustrates what circumstances may produce a severance entitlement above the 24-month cap.