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.
Can sharing intimate photos of one your coworkers with your friends result in the summary termination of your employment for cause?
In an unreported decision from the Ontario Ministry of Labour, the answer was a resounding “yes.”
On May 27, 2017, I presented a paper to the County of Carleton Law Association’s annual solicitor’s conference titled “Mo Money Mo Problems (A Review of Termination Pay Obligations for Large Payrolls).” What follows is a copy of that paper.
I can think of no better way to introduce the subject of termination pay obligations for large payrolls than the lyrical hook to the song Mo Money Mo Problems by artist The Notorious B.I.G.:
I don't know what, they want from me
It's like the more money we come across
The more problems we see
The purpose of this paper is to canvass the subject of the obligation to pay statutory severance pay. As will be explained more fully below, pursuant to the provisions of section 64 of the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000, it is patently obvious that, notwithstanding anything Ol’ Dirty Bastard may have said about the subject, [“Look here, more money, more problems, my ass / You'se a naive cat, if you still believe that …”] the more money that employers come across, the more problems they’ll see.
(c) istock/BernardaSv
A typical term of any significant asset purchase agreement, which sees the employees of the vendor continue in employment with the purchaser, is that the purchaser will make offers of employment on substantially similar terms to the vendor’s employees. As is more fully explained in my post Continuity of Employment Following the Sale of a Business, pursuant to the provisions of Part IV of the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000:
If an employer sells a business or a part of a business and the purchaser employs an employee of the seller, the employment of the employee shall be deemed not to have been terminated or severed for the purposes of this Act and his or her employment with the seller shall be deemed to have been employment with the purchaser for the purpose of any subsequent calculation of the employee’s length or period of employment.
But what if one (or more) of the employees (unreasonably) refuses the purchaser’s offer? Is that employee still entitled to ‘severance’ pay? The answer will surprise most employers.
(c) istock/davidmariuz
In an earlier post, I commented on the effect of O.Reg 288/01 on the doctrine of "frustration" with respect to employment contracts governed by the Ontario law. However, not all employees who work in Ontario are governed by the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000. However, some people working in Ontario are governed by the Canada Labour Code (the "CLC").
In an Ontario Labour Arbitration Award, Kingsway Transport v Teamsters, Local Union 91 (John Sears Grievance), 2012 CanLII 20111, Arbitrator Lorne Slotnick held that section 239.1 of the CLC forbade an employer from terminating the employment of an employee who had been on disability for 21 years.
Many employees who become chronically ill, are injured in a workplace accident, or get hurt in some other type of accident and are unable to return to work for medical reasons often believe that they have no option but to quit their job. By the same token, it is not uncommon for employers to take the position with their employees that the employee must either return to work or quit.
However, as this post will demonstrate the forced options of “return to work or quit” are, in fact, a false dichotomy. Employees have other options and employers have further responsibilities.
