Vey Willetts lawyer Andrew Vey was recently interviewed by Canadian HR Reporter concerning the expiry of deemed Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (“IDEL”). In an article entitled “Will end of deemed IDEL lead to a rise in constructive dismissal claims?”, Vey walked through the practical implications of this legal development for both employers and employees.

Generally speaking, Ontario employees are entitled to receive reasonable notice of their dismissal from employment (subject to situations where the parties have agreed in writing an alternate lawful entitlement in this regard).

Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (“IDEL”) is among the most controversial employment law changes made by the Ontario government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. By placing employees on a “deemed” IDEL, employers could essentially skirt the ordinary time limits for temporary layoffs in Ontario (which are typically capped at 13 weeks, subject to certain exceptions). In extreme cases, deemed IDEL has resulted in employees being left without work, and regular pay, for a staggering period of two and a half years.

The pandemic impacted heavily on the working lives of many: some lost their jobs, otherwise endured prolonged lay-offs, and many found themselves working from home. With the pandemic waning and (hopefully) at, or close to, an end, employers are considering how best to structure their workplaces moving forward. This presents a unique opportunity - to learn from mistakes, create efficiencies, improve culture and attract talent.

Proper classification of workers is a challenging task but one important to get right from the start. Misclassification can have serious consequences, such as exposing an organization to orders for unpaid wages and incurring fines for outstanding CPP and EI contributions.

Vey Willetts lawyer Paul Willetts was quoted in the May 3, 2022 edition of Canadian HR Reporter in an article entitled "Fired for cause, worker still gets termination pay".

In the lead-up to the June 2nd provincial election, the Progressive Conservative Party under Premier Ford has introduced yet another set of changes to Ontario employment law. This marks the second major update to the province’s workplace regulations in a 12-month period. We reported on the prior round of changes (which became law in November 2021) here.

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its ruling in Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited. This decision deals primarily with the plaintiff’s appeal of the trial ruling that his former employer had cause to terminate his employment, and he thus had no severance entitlement.

Over the course of the pandemic, many employers (particularly those in retail, hospitality and tourism) experienced a significant downturn in business. As a result, some made the difficult decision to either lay-off or dismiss staff. A recent court decision from British Columbia considers whether an employer’s dramatic loss of revenue (which informed the decision to end employment) should properly be considered a “frustration of employment.”

Over the past few months, the provincial government has introduced several legislative changes that impact upon the workplace and require employers to meet new requirements.

In early December 2021, the Ontario Government passed into law a ban on non-compete agreements. Non-competes are a form of restrictive covenant used to limit the ability of employees to seek work with competitive alternate employers. Ontario’s non-compete ban took retroactive effect as of October 25, 2021. But that begged the question, what happens to non-compete agreements entered into before this date?

As we have written in an earlier article, a relatively common question employment lawyers receive (from both employees and employers) is whether it is lawful to secretly record conversations at work. Individuals may be motivated to take this step for a number of reasons, such as trying to capture evidence of misconduct, or to safeguard against allegations arising from a contentious meeting.

As the pandemic reaches the two year mark, the Omicron variant has taken hold across the country. In response, public health agencies have updated their recommendations and protocols. With the introduction of booster shots, new quality standards for facial masks, and limited access to testing, employers may quickly come to find their existing COVID-19 policies are out of date.

In wrongful dismissal cases, absent a lawful written contractual entitlement, the courts conduct an individualized assessment to determine what would be reasonable notice of the dismissal. In a recent contribution to First Reference Talks (a collaborative HR and employment law advisory blog), Paul Willetts highlighted two wrongful dismissal cases where the short-service plaintiffs who otherwise differed significantly (in terms of age, compensation and character of employment), both received a 2.5 month notice period.

The Government of Ontario has announced that Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (“IDEL”) will be extended for a fifth time. It will now cover the period from March 1, 2020 to July 30, 2022. As a result of this change, it is possible that the worst effected employees may find themselves out of work, and without pay, for a staggering 2 years and 5 months.

While vaccination mandates and the ongoing pandemic continue to dominate headlines, less attention has been given to the major changes to Ontario employment law currently being proposed at Queen’s Park. A ban on non-compete clauses, a new minimum wage, and a legally protected right to wear poppies in the workplace are just some of what may be coming.

Over the past several weeks many Ontario employers have implemented policies setting out COVID-19 vaccination requirements for their staff. While in some sectors, such as long-term care, employee vaccination is now mandatory, in most it is not. Nonetheless, a number of employers, such as the City of Toronto, have opted to implement mandatory vaccination policies for their staff.

Last year the Ontario Superior Court awarded a former Microsoft employee 23.75 months’ pay in lieu of notice following his without cause dismissal from employment. The court’s award included damages for stock awards that would have vested during the applicable notice period.