Readers of this blog have read of the difficulty encountered by employers in Ontario in drafting and enforcing non-competition covenants. The obstacles to enforcing such covenants were highlighted in a decision of the Superior Court released on April 5, 2013, the employer was faced with a concerted effort by three of its employees to open a competitive business within its market…
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with an employer’s miscalculation of the employee’s notice period; how an Alberta employer paid the price for failing to accommodate an employee’s disabilities; and Ontario’s new mandatory occupational health and safety training.
Arbitrator Deborah Leighton has made history in her recent decision on remedy in OPSEU (Ranger) v. Ontario (Ministry of Corrections) 2013 CanLii 50479, which was released this past July 2013 by awarding more than $100,000 in damages for breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the applicable collective agreement for discrimination, harassment and poisoned work environment.
Since 2010 there has been confusion around the term “workplace harassment” in Ontario. Until that time, workplace harassment was generally limited to sexual, racial and 14 other types of harassment under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code).
While many employers in Canada understand that they have obligations under human rights legislation, they likely do not appreciate that they can also be liable if a consultant contracted to provide services on their behalf engages in discriminatory action. This is what occurred in Ontario in the recent case of Reiss v CCH Canadian Limited, 2013 HRTO 764.
It is a fact of life for some entering the labour market—the unpaid internship. For young workers, it is an opportunity to gain experience in a desired field. For employers, it is an opportunity to have recent graduates perform necessary work or apprenticeship at less cost all while assessing suitability for continued employment. Perhaps the modern internship is best explained by the following…
Pregnant employees or those employees intending to become pregnant, enjoy significant protection under various provincial and federal statutes. This article will explore the protections provided by the Ontario Human Rights Code, Employment Standards Act, and the Employment Insurance Act.
First Reference Talks is proud to announce that we are collaborating with McCarthy Tétrault Employer Advisor blog so that once a month we can present one of their excellent posts.
Companies have had almost 3 years to implement violence and harassment prevention in the workplace provisions under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act , OHSA (also known as Bill 168). Like other items in the OHSA, obligations on employers to prevent workplace violence and harassment with written policies and programs require ongoing commitment, training, and review. A few highlights of some of the requirements that employers with five or more employees must demonstrate include:
The saga of Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. JR Contracting Property Services, Lootawan and Haniff case has finally come to its conclusion (at least on the merits). Employers would be well-advised to learn from the case how not to engage with Ministry of Labour inspectors in the aftermath of a workplace accident.
Recently, some of our clients received a notice from the government reminding them to file an Accessibility Report. This was an eye opener to employers who have let the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), Customer Service compliance deadlines slip through the cracks. Some simply forgot to file. However, others were reminded they have not yet implemented all the Customer Service Standard requirements.