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 how employment law applies to foreign embassies and consulates that engage Canadian citizens and permanent residents to work at their diplomatic missions in Canada (“locally-engaged staff”).  

Office romances are nothing new. Many people have, and will likely continue, to meet their partners at work. In recent months, however, and in the wake of the #MeToo movement, office relationships have become something of a hot topic.

As an employer in a competitive market, there may be a strong business case to actively recruit top-performing employees from other companies. While there can be clear advantages to attracting talented and qualified employees, an aggressive recruitment strategy targeting workers in otherwise stable employment can also lead to unintended liability.

One of the issues we commonly encounter, when speaking with both individuals and employers, is whether the language in their employment contract addressing termination is enforceable.

For employees, where a termination provision is unenforceable, it can mean they have an entitlement to increased severance. Whereas for employers, if the clause does not hold, it can create uncertainty and result in unintended liability.

In a prior blog article, we wrote about an important decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) concerning discriminatory hiring practices. That case was Haseeb v. Imperial Oil, and the decision involved Imperial Oil’s policy of requiring all project engineer job applicants to hold either Canadian citizenship or permanent residency in order to be eligible for employment.

The 43rd Canadian Federal Election will be held on October 21, 2019. In advance of Election Day, employees and employers should familiarize themselves with the rules governing voting rights for Canadian workers.

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 “frustration of employment.”  

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.

Vey Willetts LLP started operations in August 2014, when lawyers Andrew Vey and Paul Willetts relocated from Toronto to Ottawa, with both keen to return to Eastern Ontario after several years working in the GTA. The firm was a true “start-up”, begun without a single client. As such, job #1 was to get the telephone ringing and clients through the door.

Beware the fixed-term employment contact. That should be every employer’s mantra following the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in McGuinty v. 1845035 Ontario Inc. (McGuinty Funeral Home), 2019 ONSC 4108 (“McGuinty”).

Last week, Vey Willetts lawyer, Paul Willetts, was interviewed by Global National News as part of a report looking at the Canadian Union of Postal Workers’ vote to certify couriers working for Foodora (an app-based food delivery company) in Toronto and Mississauga.

The majority of employment disputes are resolved long before they ever reach a court room. Usually, the former employee will agree to accept a sum of money from their previous employer in exchange for executing a release agreement. While the substance of release agreements can vary, they generally share two similarities:

1. No further liability: The individual agrees that upon receipt of an agreed payment, he/she shall have no further right to seek additional compensation as a result of their employment, or the termination thereof; and

2. Confidentiality: The individual agrees to keep the terms of settlement confidential.

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.

Restrictive covenants (such as non-competition and non-solicitation clauses) are a common feature of many employment agreements. It is relatively rare, however, that companies resort to litigation to enforce these requirements by way of an injunction. This may be down to the costs associated with doing so, or that the required legal threshold to obtain an injunction is high.

Hiring a new worker can be exciting. Presumably, by the time you make the job offer, something about the candidate has impressed you and suggested this person is the one for the job. Similarly, most hires are eager for the opportunity to work with you – that’s why they applied for and accepted the job!

Last month, The Advocates' Quarterly published an article by Paul Willetts entitled "Tagg Industries v. Rieder: Is Storing Pornography on a Work-Issued Laptop Cause for Dismissal". The article looks at some of the lessons for employers coming from this case when asserting cause for dismissal. In particular, employers should ensure that: the misconduct relied upon for cause dismissal reflects an irreparable breach of trust; they can prove their assertion of cause (i.e. lead concrete evidence); the reasons for cause are communicated to the employee in a clear and contemporaneous fashion.

Generally speaking, employers have the right to dismiss employees that fail to report to work sober, and perform their duties in a safe manner, particularly where these requirements have been clearly communicated through written policy.