offer of employment
Many Canadian companies face ongoing labour shortages in a variety of positions. The frustration of their recruiters and HR professionals is palpable, for despite offering above average wages, group benefits and other perquisites of employment, finding quality personnel to fill vacancies is harder than ever for some professions. One possible solution is often overlooked.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently decided that misleading or inaccurate statements made by an employer during pre–employment discussions can result in liability for negligent misrepresentation. In the case before the court, an erroneous statement was made by the representative of the Defendant employer during a pre–employment phone conversation. The statement in question was in reference to the Plaintiff’s eligibility for the Defendant’s long–term disability benefits plan. As a result, damages awarded to the Plaintiff for the negligent misrepresentation totalled nearly $100,000.
A recent decision of the BC Court of Appeal provides a cautionary tale for BC employers seeking to remedy a potential wrongful dismissal.
A recent Ontario Superior Court decision reinforces some basic principles previously discussed on this Blog (and unfortunately often missed or forgotten by employers). In Asgari v 975866 Ontario Ltd, a motion for summary judgment was decided in the Plaintiff’s favour. One issue was whether a clause, purporting to limit the Plaintiff’s pay in lieu of notice entitlements to the statutory minimum, was enforceable.
Ever since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2008 in a case Evans v. Teamsters Local Union, the courts have recognized the obligation of an employee, in certain circumstances, to accept an offer of alternate employment from their employer following dismissal. This has put many employees in the awkward position of determining whether or not the offer of employment is one that must be accepted based on the Evans’ reasoning. The difficulty faced by many employees’ counsel is the degree of difference in the position being offered, and whether such difference justifies the employee rejecting the offer of employment.
On August 4, 2010, the governor-general-in-council published amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, which were expected to adversely affect many temporary foreign workers; these regulatory amendments became effective on April 1, 2011. On April 1, 2011, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) issued Operational Bulletin 275-C, which provides operational instructions to both CIC and the Canada Border Services Agency in relation to these recent regulatory amendments.