In a short decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has recently clarified an important question regarding fixed-term employment contracts. Namely, whether a fixed-term itself can be considered a type of termination clause.

“Time theft” describes situations where an employee is paid for time they knowingly misrepresent as having been worked. Time theft may take many different forms. It could include longer-than-scheduled breaks, misrepresenting or altering records (such as timecards), or completing personal matters on paid company time. It received renewed attention during the pandemic as more employees worked remotely.

2024 got off to a bang in the world of employment law. In a recent trial level decision, an Ontario judge has found yet another termination clause illegal and unenforceable. In so doing, the court accepted an entirely novel argument for why termination provisions may be read as impermissibly contracting out of the mandatory requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”).

Much of employment law centres on wrongful dismissal litigation. Wrongful dismissal arises when an employer has terminated the employment relationship and failed to provide sufficient advance notice or pay-in-lieu to the affected employee. Less well known is the corollary of wrongful dismissal: wrongful resignation. Just as employers are obligated to give notice prior to terminating the employment relationship, so too are workers.

Hiring processes can be competitive – particularly in a slow market where eligible candidates may outnumber available opportunities. While applicants may look to present their experience or qualifications in the most favourable light (whether on a CV or in the course of an interview), there is a significant difference between positive spin and blatant dishonesty.

Among the changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic was an increased normalization of virtual meetings.

I can count on one hand the number of Zoom or Teams meetings I attended before March 2020. In 2023, by contrast, virtual meetings are an almost everyday occurrence.

On November 14, 2023, the Ontario provincial government tabled Bill 149 (the Working for Workers Act, 2023). This is the fourth installment in Ontario’s “working for workers” legislative changes. If passed into law, Bill 149 will result in amendments to several employment statutes including the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) and the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, 2022 (“DPWRA”).

When parties to a workplace dispute agree on a settlement, one typical term required by employers relates to confidentiality. Such clauses mandate that the employee refrain from telling third parties details of the deal that has been reached (with normal exceptions made for immediate family and professional advisers).

It is not uncommon for an individual to work a second job – or to take on a “side hustle” – to supplement their income. Most employers will tolerate such activities where they are non-competitive in nature, carried on outside of working hours, and do not interfere with the individual’s performance of their duties.

Individuals in Ontario have a duty to mitigate their loss of employment when seeking damages for wrongful (or constructive) dismissal. In practical terms this means that while employees may be able to seek damages from their former employer (to put them in the position they would have been had they received adequate notice of termination), they must make reasonable efforts to replace their lost income by looking for, and accepting, other comparable work.  

As of February 1, 2024, Part III of the Canada Labour Code (“CLC”) will require federally-regulated employers (including those in the private sector and Crown corporations) to meet the following obligations when terminating employment:

We have continually cautioned readers about the use of fixed-term employment contracts. The reason is simple: should fixed-term contracts be ended early, there is a high probability that dismissed employees may be entitled to payment for the balance of the remaining term.

As August rolls by, many of us are heading to cottages, beaches, and other exotic places to enjoy some well-earned R&R in the sun. For most (not within the blessed leisure classes) this means requesting time away from work and using our paid vacation time.

Due to recent changes to the Canada Labour Code (the “Code”), federally regulated employers are now required to provide workers with written “employment statements”.

From time to time, it may make sense for employers to revise and renew their employment agreements for existing staff. Updating contracts needs to be handled carefully and, as such, this article offers tips and best practices for this process.  

We often come across fixed-term contracts in our legal practice. Employers have varying reasons for wanting to use such agreements. Perhaps funding for an employee is tied to third party grants, or an employer wants to temporarily replace an existing worker during their period of maternity leave. Whatever the justification, we generally advise employers to think twice before using fixed-term contracts.

It is common for employers to include language in their staff contracts to help safeguard business interests. This may take the form of obligations to protect confidential information and/or refrain from soliciting staff, suppliers and/or clients after the employment relationship ends.

The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) was a form of income replacement offered by the Government of Canada at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible recipients could receive $2,000.00 per month during the program’s 28-week duration (which ran from March to September 2020).

Losing a job can be an upsetting experience. This may be especially so where the individual in question had been employed for a long time, was part of a small tight-knit team, or the decision came seemingly out of the blue.

In Pham v. Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd., 2023 ONCA 255, the Court of Appeal for Ontario recently issued an important ruling regarding the law of unpaid temporary layoffs.

Workers are usually categorized as an employee or a contractor. Each category comes with its own distinct set of entitlements and obligations. Generally speaking, a contractor is someone in business for themselves, while an employee works for the benefit of another’s business.

Our firm is often retained by employees and employers to provide advice on dismissal entitlements. One of the first places we look in this regard is to the parties’ written employment contract (if one exists). Employers have an incentive to implement written contracts as a means of limiting future dismissal costs. For similar reasons, contracts often come under heavy scrutiny by employees (and their lawyers) whenever a job termination takes place.

Hirings and firings are common to workplaces across Ontario. For various reasons, people come and go. Employment dismissals, however, when mishandled, can bring with them significant risk and result in unintended liability.

When drafted carefully, written employment contracts can be helpful tools. They provide a clear view of the intended relationship and proactively address common issues that may arise. In so doing, contracts offer transparency and reduce the risk of future disputes.

ChatGPT (an artificial intelligence language generator financed by Microsoft) has captured the world’s attention. By inputting prompts in plain language, ChatGPT can do a seemingly endless series of tasks. Some are quite mundane – such as answering questions – while others could be revolutionary for automating common and labour-intensive work.

January has been a difficult month for many Ontarians. In addition to the short days, snow, and cold, we are dealing with rising interest rates and, for a significant number, loss of employment.

Equity compensation is one of the fastest growing categories of employee pay. More and more Canadian workers are seeing some form of employer-issued equity (via stock options, restricted share units, employee purchase plans, etc.) offered as part of incentive compensation packages. However, little attention tends to be given to the fine print that accompanies equity pay.

Generally speaking, a dismissed employee has an obligation to take reasonable steps to find, and accept, new comparable employment. Whether it is reasonable to accept new employment will always be a contextual assessment taking into consideration: whether the work is within the individual’s skillset; whether the role is at a similar level of seniority (i.e., Director, Vice-President etc.); whether the compensation is approximately the same; and whether the job is within a reasonable distance from where the individual lives. On this last point, it is generally acknowledged by the courts that it is not reasonable to expect an individual to move cities to accept a new job.

Vey Willetts lawyer Andrew Vey recently spoke with The Lawyer’s Daily for an article entitled “Appellate ruling confirms employers must lead evidence when disputing mitigation efforts: lawyers.“

The duty to accommodate disability in the workplace has both procedural and substantive aspects. It is not enough for an employer to merely arrive at the right result; the process in getting there is equally important.