Employee “Experience and Sophistication” Irrelevant to Contract Enforceability
Court of Appeal: Slapping Female Coworker’s Buttocks in “Heat of the Moment” not “Wilful Misconduct”
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.
When is 2.5 Months "Reasonable Notice" of Dismissal?
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.
Court of Appeal: Employee had no right to Damages for Unvested Stock Awards After Termination
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.
Do older employees have a duty to mitigate loss of employment?
Dismissed employees are expected to actively search for new work if they want to preserve full severance rights. Yet a recent case out of Ontario suggests there may be more leniency for older workers. This reflects a judicial acknowledgment of the fact that re-employment opportunities tend to become scarce past a certain age.
Wrongful Dismissal Damages During COVID-19: Offsets and Repayment Obligations
In the Eye of the Beholder: Job Titles, Character of Employment and Severance
When Ontario courts assess whether an employee has been wrongfully dismissed, they often start by referencing the 1960 decision of Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., 1960 CanLII 294 (ON SC).
Bardal directs courts to consider several factors specific to the employee when determining appropriate severance, including: 1) character of the employment; 2) length of service; 3) age at the time of termination; and 4) availability of similar employment.