The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with Ontario’s increase to the employer health tax exemption and how the province is interpreting employment relationships in relation to the tax and the how a discriminatory dismissal decision was overturned by the Divisional Court.
Through mergers and expansion many Canadian companies now have substantial foreign operations. As a result, employees often find themselves, whether by choice or compulsion, transferred to a foreign country. When a dispute arises with the employer while the employee is working in that foreign country, the question arises as to which justice system will take jurisdiction over that dispute. Clearly, the obligation on the employee to sue in the foreign jurisdiction will increase both the cost and the inconvenience of enforcing her rights under her contract of employment, whether written or oral.
Drug and alcohol testing in the workplace, particularly randomized testing, has always been a grey area for employers. When is such testing permissible? When is it deemed reasonable in light of safety concerns? The Supreme Court of Canada has answered some of these questions after their long-awaited decision regarding randomized drug and alcohol testing in the case of Irving Pulp and Paper.
A small-town bank manager who had an affair with a subordinate—including sex in the bank, during and after hours—should not have been dismissed for cause, according to the Federal Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, given the circumstances, it was not appropriate to reinstate the employee to his job.
The three most popular HRinfodesk articles this week deal with 2013 EI rates, hypersensitivity to scent in the workplace and insurbordinate behaviour…
The three most viewed articles in this week HRinfodesk newsletter deals with assessing a probationary employee, dismissing an employee based on a serious misconduct and the upcoming workplace mental health standard…
The three most viewed articles in this week HRinfodesk newsletter deals with OHS reprisals, dismissal because employee issued threats, and WSIB benefits for employee assaulted at work…
The war is over (and you’re fired)! In the history of questionable dismissals of employees, the saga of journalist Edward Kennedy has to rank near the top of the list. Over 65 years after his firing, his former employer has apologized. (In PDF) Is excessive Internet use time theft? It is now common [...]
An employer decides to dismiss an employee without notice and without legal cause. Subsequent to the dismissal, in reviewing the employee’s work, the employer discovers a number of errors which, if known at the time, would have been sufficient to support a dismissal for cause. Can the employer successfully argue cause in defence of a wrongful dismissal claim? This is a question I have been asked many times by employers, as a review of a dismissed employee’s work after dismissal often reveals significant errors or, in some cases, outright dishonesty.
Employment lawyers are generally quite adept at negotiating and resolving disputes arising out of the termination of an individual’s employment. We have all seen the statistics that only a miniscule number of dismissals result in a full trial and we know that in almost every case, it is better for the parties to reach a resolution than to proceed with litigation. That said, many traps exist in the settlement of a wrongful dismissal claim.
Constructive dismissals are something that most employers are aware of, but many may not be aware that constructive dismissals are in fact very difficult cases for employees to win. This is illustrated by a recent case out of Nova Scotia, Gillis v. Sobeys Group Incorporated 2011 NSSC 443.