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.

Vey Willetts LLP is pleased to welcome Colin Marshall as a summer student for 2017. Colin has recently completed his second year at the University of Ottawa Law School and will be working with the firm over the next several months on a variety of projects. Welcome Colin!

Last month, The Advocates' Quarterly published an article by Vey Willetts' lawyer, Paul Willetts. Willetts' article, entitled "Punitive Damages in Morison v. Ergo-Industrial Seating: The New 'Wallace Bump'?", looks at whether the Ontario courts are increasingly using punitive damages as a vehicle to award former employee's compensation for "bad faith" employer conduct in dismissal, as aggravated damages (arguably the appropriate vehicle) are more difficult to attain.

A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice touches upon a little discussed area of employment law. Specifically, when does the limitation period clock start running for a claim of wrongful dismissal?

In the recent decision of Covenoho v. Pendylum Ltd., the Ontario Court of Appeal awarded a former employee of Pendylum 40 weeks' pay ($56,000.00), overturning the ruling of the Motion Judge at summary judgment. 

Q&A is a recurring series on the Vey Willetts LLP blog. The aim is to provide quick answers to questions we commonly encounter in our day-to-day practice of employment law. In this edition we focus on employee sick leave and medical information.

Recently, Lloyd’s of London implemented a ban on employee drinking between the hours of 9am and 5pm on work days. Traditionally, the “boozy lunch” had been a big part of Lloyd’s culture. It was the preferred vehicle to seal deals and woo clients. As such, the change in policy came as a shock to the 800 employees impacted by the ban, and it was met with open hostility. 

Vey Willetts lawyer Paul Willetts was quoted in the March 6, 2017 edition of The Lawyer's Daily in an article entitled "Big changes could be on Way for Ontario workplace landscape." The article discusses the provincial government's Changing Workplaces Review and some of the changes employees and employers in Ontario may expect to see. 

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. 

On February 6, 2017 the Ontario Bar Association Labour & Employment Law Section published an article by Vey Willetts' lawyer Andrew Vey. The article, entitled "Summary Judgment Motions for Wrongful Dismissal: An Update", looks at four recent Ontario court cases to assess the use of summary judgement as a tool in employment law litigation.

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.

The capacity to send and receive email on smart phone devices and laptops has fundamentally altered the working lives of many. The notion of the ‘9 to 5’ job has, in many industries, become a thing of the past. Our use of email has profoundly altered how and when we work: it has blurred the distinction between work and home lives; it has altered our view of what is appropriate communication and our expectation of how quickly people should respond. In many ways, it has simultaneously increased the volume of workplace communications and dramatically accelerated the pace at which it occurs.

The authority to make laws in Canada is split between the federal and provincial governments. Generally speaking, the employment relationship of most Ontario workers is subject to provincial laws such as the Employment Standards Act. A limited number of Ontario employees, however, work in industries over which the federal government has jurisdiction, and consequently sets the law. The federal equivalent of the Employment Standards Act is the Canada Labour Code. Federal jurisdiction applies to many Ontario workers employed in the following industries:

A workplace is a team environment. It functions best when the atmosphere is positive. One of the biggest concerns for employers, in Ontario and elsewhere, is how to address and manage the presence of a “toxic employee” in the workplace.

Vey Willetts lawyer Paul Willetts was quoted in the November 28, 2016 edition of Canadian HR Reporter in an article entitled "Older Employees Deserve More". The article discusses the recent Ontario Superior Court decision of Ozorio v. Canadian Hearing Society. In this case, a 60-year old senior managerial employee, with 30 years service was dismissed. Ms. Ozorio was ultimately awarded 24 months of reasonable notice. To read our recent review of the case and its implications for older workers please click here.

In the recent decision of Morison v Ergo-Industrial Seating Systems Inc. the Ontario Superior Court of Justice made an award of $50,000.00 in punitive damages against the defendant employer. This decision is an important reminder to all Ontario employers of the type of conduct which may attract punitive damages.

With the internet playing an ever larger role in our lives (and our work), it is no surprise that there has been a corresponding increase in online employee misconduct. In this realm, one of the most frustrating situations for employers relates to anonymous postings that offend company policy. These occur in a variety of ways: from nameless comments on online message boards disparaging the workplace to videos uploaded to sites like YouTube as a form of workplace or co-worker harassment.

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.