Are public school teachers protected from unreasonable search and seizure by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if the search and seizure is performed in the workplace by their employers?
As stated by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in the case of Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario v. York Region District School Board, 2022 ONCA 476, “There is no doubt that they are.”
Can an employee sue for constructive dismissal if the cause of the employment relationship break down is that the employee was subjected to chronic workplace harassment resulting in injuries otherwise compensable under the WSIB regime?
In a well-reasoned, no-nonsense decision, Morningstar v. WSIAT, 2021 ONSC 5576 (CanLII), the Ontario Divisional Court (Sachs, Backhouse and Kurke JJ.) overturned two earlier decisions of Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the “WSIAT”), about which I blogged in my post Employees Cannot Sue for Constructive Dismissal Caused by Chronic Mental Stress: WSIAT, and held that one can.
Section 64(1)(b) of the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 requires an employer who severs an employment relationship with an employee to pay severance pay to the employee if: (a) the employee was employed by the employer for five years or more; and (b) the employer “has a payroll of $2.5 million or more.”
The question of how to calculate the employer’s payroll, specifically whether one is to consider the employer’s global payroll or only the employer’s Ontario-based payroll has (for some reason) continued to be a source of confusion.
In Hawkes v. Max Aicher (North America) Limited, 2021 ONSC 4290 (CanLII), the Ontario Divisional Court (Dambrot, Lederer and Favreau J.J.) has finally, hopefully, laid the question to rest.
Should courts void contractual termination provisions if such provisions have even the remote potential to, at some later point in time, violate the strictures of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 even if, at the time of actual termination, there is no actual violation?
In Rutledge v. Canaan Construction Inc., 2020 ONSC 4246 (CanLII), Justice Judy A. Fowler Byrne of the Ontario Superior Court held that they should.
Once an employee has been afforded accommodation for his disability, is the specific accommodation set in stone forever, or can an employer alter the specific accommodation, so long as it does not do so in a way that would result in discrimination?
In City of Toronto v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, 2019 ONSC 4045 (CanLII), the Ontario Divisional Court rejected the argument that an employer cannot alter an accommodation.
Is a stated “desire” to return to work, at some point, and without more information, sufficient to rebut the medical evidence that a contract of employment has become legally frustrated?
In Katz et al. v. Clarke, 2019 ONSC 2188, the Ontario Divisional Court held that was not.
Is the sole requirement to rebut the common law presumption of termination only upon reasonable notice that the contractual termination clause comply with the ESA, or is something else required?
In a decision released December 6, 2018, Movati Athletic (Group) Inc. v. Bergeron, 2018 ONSC 7258 (CanLII), the Ontario Divisional Court (Swinton, Thorburn, and Copeland JJ.) upheld an earlier decision of the Honourable Justice O’Bonsawin, 2018 ONSC 885, about which I blogged in my post Lack of Clear Warning Voids Termination Provision, which held something more is required.
In addition to upholding Justice O’Bonsawin’s decision, the Divisional Court provided some very clear, point-by-point analysis on what it takes for a contractual termination clause to sufficiently, and legally, rebut that common law presumption.
On November 24, 2017, in a post titled, Working Notice Inappropriate for Employees on Disability Leave, I blogged about the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Hood, J.) in McLeod v. 1274458 Ontario Inc., 2017 ONSC 4073.
As the title of that post suggests, at that time, the Superior Court had found that a period of working notice did not ‘count’ with respect to an employee absent from employment on disability leave.
On March 19, 2018, a three-member bench of the Divisional Court (Swinton, Sachs and Corthorn JJ.) dismissed the employer’s appeal: McLeod v. 1274458 Ontario Inc. o/a Frontier Sales Limited, 2018 ONSC 1866 (CanLII).
(c) istock/utah778
Is an employee required to submit to an independent medical examination, an “IME”, by a doctor of his employer’s choosing as part of the employee’s duty to participate in the human rights accommodation process? In a decision released May 19, 2017, by the Ontario Divisional Court, Bottiglia v Ottawa Catholic School Board, 2017 ONSC 2517, the answer was “sometimes.”
(c) istock/MarkLevant
Can a trial court award aggravated damages to an employee who claims wrongful dismissal absent a finding of actual mental distress being suffered by that employee? That was the question answered by the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin, sitting as a judge of the Ontario Divisional Court, in the case of Walker v Hulse, Playfair and McGarry, 2017 ONSC 358 (CanLII).
Taking on the employees of another business can create unexpected financial obligations for employers. For example, this blog has previously looked at cases of employers being found responsible for an employee's past year of service when that employer takes over or otherwise acquires a business, see Two Employers Under One Umbrella Both Get Soaked by Judge.
Those cases beg the question: When will an employer not be deemed responsible for an employee's past years of service with another company? While the answer to that question is simple - when the two companies are wholly unrelated to one another - as the case of Paul Amaral v Verona Floors Inc., 2016 ONSC 5763 (CanLII) demonstrates, sometimes knowing when two companies are unrelated is a complicated question.
(c) istock/Hailshadow
Some decisions are just textbooks on employment law. They are ‘must read’ decisions for anyone looking to practice in this area. Boucher v Black & McDonald Ltd., 2016 ONSC 7220 is a key example of how to approach the following subjects: long-term absence; frustration of contract; human rights damages; and off-set of benefits for the receipt of long-term disability benefits.
The facts of the case are easy to understand and the statement of law is first-principles stuff. For anyone wondering what to do with an employee who has been absent from employment for a considerable period of time, here is a lesson in what not to do.
If an employment contract’s termination provision has the potential to violate the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000, but is legally compliant at the time of termination is it legal or not?
The issue has been litigated several times. On February 16, 2016, the Honourable Justice Laurence A. Pattillo, writing on behalf of the Ontario Divisional Court, provided his position on the debate in the case of Garreton v Complete Innovations Inc., 2016 ONSC 1178 .
What is the legal effect of being “on probation”? While this blog has looked at the issue of an employee being employed pursuant to a written employment contract containing a period of probation, (see Ontario Court Awards Four Months Notice to Employee Fired while “On Probation”), a recent decision from the Ontario Divisional Court provides a new wrinkle to this issue.
In Nagribianko v Select Wine Merchants Ltd., 2016 ONSC 490 the Ontario Divisional Court, sitting as the court of appeal from a decision of the Ontario Small Claims Court found that “in the absence of bad faith, an employer is entitled to dismiss a probationary employee without notice and without giving reasons.”
For the reasons argued below, I would respectfully submit that the court in this case got it wrong.
