Can an employee sue her former supervisor for sexual harassment if she has signed a Full and Final Release in favour of her former employer?
In the case of Watson v. The Governing Council of the Salvation Army of Canada, 2018 ONSC 1066 (CanLII), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that she might not be precluded by the release.
Can an employer force an employee to wear a shoe with an elevated heel – aka “high heels” – if wearing such shoes is not required for the worker to perform his or her work safely?
As of November 27, 2017, and as a result of the implementation of the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017, S.O. 2017 C.22, formerly Bill 148, the answer to that question is “no” - unless you work in the “entertainment and advertising industry”.
(c) istock/vadimguzhva
“The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at $1,000.” With those thirteen simple words, Ontario’s top court has confirmed that employees in Ontario may sometimes be required to submit to an invasive medical examination - by a doctor of their employer’s choosing - as part of the duty to accommodate and return to work process.
On August 25, 2017, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its endorsement on a motion for leave [read: “permission”] to appeal the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Bottiglia v Ottawa Catholic School Board, 2017 ONSC 2517 (CanLII).
This is a big deal for Ontario employment and human rights law.
(c) istock/seriga
On April 1, 2012, I published my first post to what was then called “Sean Bawden’s Law Blog for Suddenly Unemployed.” That was five years and over 330 posts ago. Some things, such as this blog’s title, have changed. Other things, like who is behind the keyboard, have not.
As regular readers of this blog will know, from time-to-time I try to take an introspective look at how we got here. Also, in the spirit of inspiring others to do the same, here is my ‘look behind the curtain’ at what is now Labour Pains.
Will the recently proposed changes to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act finally bring about the workplace violence and harassment protections that so many believed would be implemented as a result of “Bill 168?” It’s possible.
For years I have been critical of the actual effects of the changes to the law brought about by Bill 168. Heralded by many at the time as a necessary change to the law, the experience of the interpretation and implementation of those changes has been grossly underwhelming.
Now the Ontario government is proposing further changes to the law by way of Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2015. The Bill passed first reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on October 27, 2015.
A reading of the proposed amendments to the law leaves one with cautious optimism that perhaps change will finally come about.
From time-to-time a decision will come along that will leave me not only confused, but frustrated. Wyllie v Larche, 2015 ONSC 4747 is one of those cases.
Yesterday, I wrote about the court’s decision not to award punitive damages in that case. With respect to that issue, the court decided that the employer’s refusal to pay the statutory minimum amount of severance to a dismissed employee was excused because the employer had offered the employee an extra $546.25 (gross of tax) to waive all of his rights. See: Failure to Pay Statutory Severance ‘Okay’ because Employer Offered to Do So.
In my earlier commentary I had written the following:
I have a number of issues with Justice Price’s decisions. Principally His Honour’s decision to award Mr. Wyllie no more than his five days of statutory severance and his decision to not award punitive damages.
I have already explained my concerns with respect to the punitive damages decision, this post examines the severance issue.
A lot has already been said about Target’s abrupt decision to close all of its Canadian stores; but one story has dominated headlines more than others: Target’s ‘decision’ to provide its employees with 16 weeks of ‘severance.’ As some employees are discovering, that ‘severance’ is really nothing more than working notice. What is more, the ‘decision’ was pretty much already made for Target as the amount is dictated by Ontario law.
Working through the mechanics of the situation, one can see that Target’s ‘decision’ is hardly as generous as it was first touted.
How does requiring an executive to purchase shares in his employer’s company affect the employee’s reasonable notice period in the event that his employment is terminated without cause? According to the Honourable Mr. Justice G.E. Taylor of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the answer is that it tends to length the notice period.
In the case of Rodgers v. CEVA, 2014 ONSC 6583 (CanLII), Mr. Justice Taylor held that, “Based on the required investment in [the employer] I find there was at least an implied representation that the plaintiff was about to embark upon a long-term employment relationship with [his employer.]
Is the limit on the receipt of WSIB loss of earnings benefits unconstitutional because is discriminates on the basis of age? According to a decision of the Ontario Divisional Court, Gouthro v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal et al., 2014 ONSC 7289, the law is just fine.
Can publicly announcing one’s intention to retire from employment serve to reduce an employee’s entitlement to wrongful dismissal damages if the employee is later terminated without cause?
According to a decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Kimball v Windsor Raceway Inc, 2014 ONSC 3286, an employee’s stated intention to retire and therefore not look for new employment following termination "may well be relevant in assessing what constitutes reasonable notice.”
For years this blog has taken the position that if a termination provision in an employment contract does not technically violate the provisions of the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 at the time of termination, but has the potential to do so at other times, it is legally unenforceable at all times. Period. For my earlier commentary on this subject see Poorly Drafted Employment Agreement Proves Costly.
The position and statement of law is premised upon a decision made by the Honourable Justice Wailan Low of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice: Wright v. The Young and Rubicam Group of Companies (Wunderman), 2011 ONSC 4720 (CanLII).
A more recent decision from the same court, this time authored by the Honourable Justice David Price, Ford v. Keegan, 2014 ONSC 4989 (released August 28, 2014) specifically rejects Justice Low’s decision on this point.
For those who feel like their workplaces are already too much like a prison, May 20, 2015, will not be a happy day. For on that day the workplaces of Ontario will resemble Andy Dufresne’s prison cell at the fictitious Shawshank State Prison.
For those who have not seen the movie The Shawshank Redemption my first question is “how?” But, if you have not, and sorry to spoil it for you, the movie focuses on Andy Dufresne, a innocent man sentenced to life in prison at Shawshank State Prison, from which he eventually escapes by tunnelling through the prison’s walls. Dufresne conceals his tunnel with a large poster of Rita Hayworth.
Unfortunately, the poster that employers must distribute to all employees as of May 20, 2015, is not of Rita Hayworth; it is of the salient provisions of Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000.
On November 20, 2014, unpaid interns in Ontario gained a modicum of protection under some of Ontario’s employment laws. No, the government did not make any changes to minimum wage provisions relevant to unpaid labour (although the government did change the minimum wage law to make the same reflective of the Consumer Price Index, effective October 1, 2015), the government amended the Occupational Health and Safety Act to make that law applicable to unpaid labourers.
"Will litigate for food?" Earlier this month a community legal clinic in Oshawa drew fire after it advertised a 10-month unpaid articling position on Legal Aid Ontario’s official website. But can it do that? Shouldn’t lawyers know better?
Incredibly, the law concerning minimum wage does not apply to everyone. Some employees are expressly exempted from the protections of the minimum standards of the Employment Standards Act, 2000. Among those who are exempted are articling students.
To what extent must an employer investigate allegations of sexual harassment? This question comes to the fore as a result of a recent episode of CBC’s The Fifth Estate, The Unmaking of Jian Ghomeshi, in which the Executive Director of Radio at CBC, Mr. Chris Boyce, defended his decision to limit his investigate of Ghomeshi’s behaviour by saying he is “not the police.”
But is that position really defensible? The Fifth Estate certainly made it appear that Mr. Boyce had been confronted with a number of allegations of serious concerns with Mr. Ghomeshi’s behaviour both inside and outside the workplace. Could Mr. Boyce, as a member of CBC management really turn a blind eye to the entire situation?
While there are several cases concerning this issue, the case of Menagh v. Hamilton (City), 2005 CanLII 36268 (ON SC) provides a paradigmatic example of poor employee behaviour and how the courts of Ontario will respond to such actions.
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, in which leave to appeal a decision from the Court of Appeal of Alberta, Beaulieu v University of Alberta, 2014 ABCA 137 (CanLII), was denied, further bolsters all predictions that Jian Ghomeshi’s case against the CBC is doomed to failure.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal of Alberta affirmed the legal principle that unionized employees must subject all disputes arising out of the employment situation to the mediation/arbitration process contained within the employee’s collective bargaining agreement – not the civil courts.
Is it be ‘illegal’ to ask someone in a job interview whether he or she smokes cigarettes?
While the answer remains unclear, there is a compelling argument that the answer may be yes, in some cases.
At the end of 2013, this blog proclaimed the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in Fair v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2013 HRTO 440, as the number one case in Ontario employment law for that year. At the end of September 2014, the Tribunal’s decision was upheld by a three-judge bench of the Ontario Divisional Court: 2014 ONSC 2411.
While one has to assume that this case is still yet far from over, the purpose of this post is to consider the decision of the Divisional Court with respect to this matter.
From 2000-2006, there was a television program called “Malcolm in the Middle.” The show was called as much because the lead subject was the middle child of three: Malcolm. The theme song for the show ended with the line “life is unfair.” But is life truly unfair for those caught in the middle?
The purpose of this post is to consider the middle category of employment; those who are neither true employees but are not exactly independent contractors either: the intermediate position of “dependent contractor”.
As this post will hopefully demonstrate life is not always unfair to those who find themselves ‘in the middle.’
Does being treated unfairly in employment and simply having a disability, being a member of a visible of invisible minority, or otherwise being protected by the provisions of Ontario’s Human Rights Code entitle one to bring an application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario?
A recent appeal decision from Ontario’s Divisional Court, Hay v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal), 2014 ONSC 2858 (CanLII) affirmed that the answer is no.
