notice period
August 21, 2012 Alison J. Bird Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources, Payroll, Wages and Compensation,
There is an implied term of the employment contract that when an employee is terminated without cause, they will be provided reasonable notice of termination. (Of course, an employer can avoid the reasonable notice requirement by including an express provision regarding termination in the employment contract.)
award damages, Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd, employment contract, employment law, length of reasonable notice, notice period, pay in lieu of notice, reasonable notice, reasonable notice of termination, severance arrangement, terminated without cause, termination, working notice
August 2, 2012 Stuart Rudner Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources, Payroll, Pensions and Benefits, Wages and Compensation,
Last year, I reminded employers of the danger of failing to continue disability benefits after dismissing an employee and providing pay in lieu of notice. An important case has now passed through the Ontario Court of Appeal…
Brito v. Canac Kitchens, common-law notice period, contract of employment, Disability, disability coverage, disability insurance, Dismissal, dismissing an employee, employment contract, employment law, employment standards act, employment-related benefits, lump-sum payment, notice of dismissal, notice period, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, pay in lieu of notice, reasonable opportunity to seek new employment, salary and benefit continuance, termination without cause, terminations, working notice
April 27, 2012 Christina Catenacci Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice just decided that an employer terminated a 65-year-old long-term employee without the proper amount of notice or severance. As a result, the employer had to pay hefty damages, interest and costs award
Age at termination, damages, employment law, long-term employee, mitigation, notice period, reasonable notice, reasonable termination notice, statutory obligations, statutory requirements, Statutory severance, supervisor, termination, termination notice, termination without cause, wrongful dismissal, years of service
April 9, 2012 Matt Lalande Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources, Payroll, Wages and Compensation
We know that there is no precise method to determine the common-law period of reasonable notice when terminating employees. What has evolved and has been the most quoted case to help with this is the infamous Bardal vs. Globe and Mail. This case tells us that reasonable notice must be decided with reference to each specific case, considering the character of employment, length of service of the servant, the age of the servant and the availability of similar employment, having regard to the experience, training and qualifications of the servant.
age, availability of similar employment, Bardal, Bardal Factors, Bardal vs. The Globe & Mail, BFOR, bona fide occupational requirement, common-law entitlements, employment contract, employment law, employment standards act, experience, Law vs. Canada, Moran vs. Atlantic Co-operative Publishers, notice period, Peacock vs. Western Securities Ltd., qualifications, retirement age, termination, Termination clause, termination notice, training
March 1, 2012 Stuart Rudner Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources, Payroll, Pensions and Benefits, Wages and Compensation
The recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Szczypiorkowski v. Coast Capital Savings Credit Union is not particularly groundbreaking, but it does affirm a number of important points for employers…
annual bonus, Bardal, Bonus entitlement on termination, breach of policy, employment law, Ferguson v. Kodak Canada Inc., inappropriate email, just cause, mitigation, notice period, reasonable notice, reference letter, sexual harassment, Szczypiorkowski v. Coast Capital Savings Credit Union, termination, withdrawing just cause claim, wrongful dismissal
January 11, 2012 Matt Lalande Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources
Employers should never accept resignations from employees that are upset. It simply casts a “wider net of possible financial exposure” if things turn nasty. In other words, judges or juries probably won’t sympathize with the issue of resignation acceptance if the employee is genuinely and legitimately upset (not because someone misplaced their red stapler).
employment law, Kieran v. Ingram Micro, mitigation, notice of resignation, notice period, offer to resign, quit or be fired, reasonable notice, resignation, termination, valid resignation, voluntary acceptance, withdraw resignation, wrongful dismissal, wrongful resignation
December 21, 2011 Andrew Taillon Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources, Payroll, Wages and Compensation
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.
breach of contract, canadian employment law, constructive dismissal, Constructive dismissals, Dismissal, employment contract, employment law, essential term, Farber v. Royal Trust Company, Gillis v. Sobeys Group Incorporated, notice period, Nova Scotia, substantial change, wrongful dismissal
November 24, 2011 Earl Altman Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources, Payroll, Wages and Compensation
Probably the most prevalent misconception in the area of employment law is the notion that all employees are entitled to “one month per year” as notice of termination without cause. This has, in the past, been referred to as the golden rule. In spite of repeated judicial pronouncements that the rule no longer applies, human resources professionals continue to apply it.
Bardal Factors, Bardal v. The Globe & Mail, character of employment, Dismissal, economy, employment law, length of employment, length of notice period, lump-sum payment, notice of dismissal, notice period, one month per year, re-employment prospects, salary continuance, specialized knowledge, statutory notice period, termination, termination package, termination without cause, unstable labour market, wrongful dismissal
August 4, 2011 Stuart Rudner Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources, Payroll, Wages and Compensation
I always advise clients to consider their options when they must dismiss an individual (assuming it is without cause). Rather than automatically offering a package, and paying the employee not to work, I encourage our clients to consider whether a period of working notice could be viable. By doing so, at least they would get some value for their money. However, I often think back to a comment made by Mr. Justice Donnelly of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, who, in the course of considering a wrongful dismissal claim, opined that “[w]orking notice is an institution almost invariably predestined to fail.”
Elg v. Stirling Doors, employment law, notice period, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, pay in lieu of notice, terminate an employee without cause, termination, termination notice, wilful misconduct, working notice, working notice of termination, wrongful dismissal
July 5, 2011 Earl Altman Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources
One of the difficulties faced by plaintiffs’ counsel in wrongful dismissal litigation is the length of time it can require to get a case to trial and obtain monetary compensation for the dismissed employee. Obviously, a plaintiff without a job is sensitive to the costs and delay which may result. This issue can often be addresses by way of a Motion for Summary Judgment.
accrued vacation pay, Bardal Factors, Bardal v. The Globe & Mail, canadian employment law, Di Tommaso v. Crown Metal Packaging Canada LP, employment law, employment standards act, monetary compensation for the dismissed employee, Notice of termination, notice period, Ontario Court of Appeal, Ontario Superior Court, summary judgment in wrongful dismissal actions, Supreme Court of Canada, temporary employment, termination, the end of the notice period, working notice, wrongful dismissal, wrongful dismissal damages, wrongful dismissal litigation
June 15, 2011 Andrew Taillon Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources
A recent case from the Alberta Court of Appeal suggests that Honda damages, previously known as Wallace damages, are becoming less of a threat for employers in wrongful dismissal suits.
Alberta Court of Appeal, award of aggravated damages, bad faith behaviour, bad faith dismissal, Elgert v. Home Hardware Stores, employment law, extension of the notice period, Hadley v. Baxendale, Honda damages, Honda v. Keays, manner in which the termination was carried out, misconduct, moral damages, notice period, risk of damages, Supreme Court of Canada, terminations, Wallace damanges, Wallace v. United Grain Growers, wrongful dismissal
May 31, 2011 Earl Altman Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources
A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision dealt with a number of issues arising from the dismissal without cause or notice of a senior vice-president of an investment company. One of the more difficult issues addressed at trial, and considered by the Court of Appeal, was the trigger date for the right of the employer to re-purchase the employee’s two percent interest in the company.
Bardal v. The Globe & Mail, case law, Court of Appeal, damages, determination of reasonable notice, dismissal without cause, employment contract, employment law, length of service, longer notice period, notice period, pay in lieu of notice, Pensions and Benefits, reasonable notice, right of the employer to re-purchase the employee’s interest in the company, stock grant, stock options, stock options on dismissal, termination
May 18, 2011 Andrew Taillon Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources
A recent case out of the Quebec Superior Court Lysecky v. United Parcel Service of Canada Limited 2010 QCCS 5098 is indicative how the question of “moral damages” is still unsettled law.
bad faith during the termination, Civil law, common law, employment law, extension of the notice period, Fox v. Silver Sage Housing Corporation, Honda v. Keays, Lysecky v. United Parcel Service of Canada Limited, manner of dismissal, mental distress, moral damages, notice period, Quebec, Quebec Superior Court, Supreme Court of Canada, terminations, Wallace damages, Wallace v. United Grain Growers, wrongful dismissal
May 5, 2011 Stuart Rudner Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources
As we all know, in the late 1990’s the Supreme Court of Canada held that employers had a duty to act in good faith in the course of terminating the employment relationship. In Wallace v. United Grain Growers, our High Court found that the employer had breached that duty, and the majority held that the remedy for such a breach would be to extend the applicable notice period. Over the following decade, claims for “Wallace damages” became commonplace, to say the least. Unfortunately, many courts seemed more than willing to oblige plaintiffs, finding bad faith in all sorts of circumstances that, while not demonstrative of perfect practice in the course of dismissal, hardly seemed to indicate conduct taken in bad faith.
Altman v. Steve’s Music Store Inc, bad faith, damages arising out of bad faith, damages arising out of the manner of dismissal, Dismissal, duty to act in good faith, employment law, employment relationship, Keays v. Honda Canada Inc, Mulvihill v. Ottawa (City), notice period, Soost v. Merrill Lynch, Supreme Court of Canada, terminations, The Damages Formerly Known as Wallace, Wallace damages, Wallace v. United Grain Growers
Hi John, Thanks for your comment. Check out paragraph 67 of the decision: "Accordingly, none of what I have written above is to suggest or... – May 22, 4:38 PM
This is really spin doctoring the decision. My firm appeared at the Court of Appeal for an intervenor the University of Saskatchewan. Whatever the Supreme... – May 22, 1:00 AM
