Arbitration Clause Illegal & Unconscionable: Uber Drivers Taken for a Ride

Arbitration Clause Illegal & Unconscionable: Uber Drivers Taken for a Ride

On January 2, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its first decision of 2019: Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al. While the new year is just getting started, this decision is likely to be one of the most significant from an employment law perspective. Its implications are far-reaching and raise novel compliance challenges for Ontario employers that contract to resolve workplace disputes by way of private arbitration.

Paul Willetts Quoted in the Lawyer's Daily

Paul Willetts Quoted in the Lawyer's Daily

Vey Willetts lawyer Paul Willetts was quoted in the February 26, 2018 edition of The Lawyer's Daily. The article, "Automated legal services cost efficient, but can leave clients vulnerable, lawyers say", considers the advantages and disadvantages of artificial intelligence, and the automation of legal documents, for individuals in need of legal assistance. 

Amberber v. IBM Canada Limited: Termination clause fails to rebut employee’s entitlement to reasonable notice

Amberber v. IBM Canada Limited: Termination clause fails to rebut employee’s entitlement to reasonable notice

Vey Willetts LLP was recently successful in defeating a summary judgment brought by IBM Canada Limited. This decision, Amberber v. IBM Canada Limited, serves as an important reminder to employers of the need to draft contractual termination clauses with a high degree of clarity, or risk unanticipated liability in the event of a without cause dismissal.

Ontario employer cannot seek protection of 'void' provision it drafted

Ontario employer cannot seek protection of 'void' provision it drafted

A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal, Roberts v. Zoomermedia Limited, dealt with the unusual situation of a defendant employer arguing that its own contractual termination provision was unenforceable and thus the plaintiff employee was entitled to common law reasonable notice. Employees frequently challenge the enforceability of a termination provision to seek common law notice, however, it is rare that an employer would do the same.

Uncertainty with Termination Clauses Continues

Uncertainty with Termination Clauses Continues

There are few areas of employment law more in flux (and vexing to lawyers) than that surrounding the enforcement of termination clauses. Part of the frustration is when the Courts provide seemingly contradictory messages on whether termination clauses will be upheld. In January 2017 alone, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released two decisions that appear, on their face, to be somewhat at odds. 

From 8 Weeks to 15 Months: Employee Wins Significant Severance

From 8 Weeks to 15 Months: Employee Wins Significant Severance

Vey Willetts LLP was recently successful on a motion for summary judgment, seeking increased severance for an employee who had been wrongfully dismissed. In its decision, Vinette v. Delta Printing Limited (2017 ONSC 182), the Superior Court significantly increased Mr. Vinette's severance entitlement from 8 weeks to 15 months.

Fixed Term Employment Agreements and Employee Severance

Fixed Term Employment Agreements and Employee Severance

Fixed term employment contracts can serve a useful purpose within an organization. They permit employers to limit the engagement of an employee to a set project or a fixed period of time. In circumstances where there is a significant fluctuation in annual work volume or where temporary staff are required to offset absences (such as due to illness or a parental leave) fixed term contracts may be ideal.

Silence Proves Costly: Employment Agreements and Reasonable Notice

Employers who fail to incorporate a binding termination clause into their written employment agreements may face significant, and unexpected, liability for severance. This lesson was learned the hard way by Qualified Metal Fabricators ("QML") in a recent unpublished case out of Toronto. 

QML employed Mr. Roy Singh as an assembler from May 2011 until his dismissal, due to an alleged shortage of work, in May 2015. Upon termination, QML paid Mr. Singh 4 weeks' termination pay in compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and allegedly the terms of his written employment agreement.