We are signing off with a list of the top 10 most read First Reference Talks posts 2016. Human rights issues and rules for termination notice seem to have been hot topics this year with several blog posts on the topics making it on the list. The top 10 most read First Reference Talks posts […]
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with defaming a former employee; deductibility of membership dues; and, limited notice of termination.
Ten months after Imelda Roche went on medical leave, her employer sent her a termination letter, believing that she was better but choosing not to return to work. But when the employer found out Roche was still not well, it rescinded the termination and restored her benefits. Roche wasn’t impressed and sued for wrongful dismissal at the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.
On January 2, 2014 Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a class proceeding by 527 wrongfully terminated employees led by Bob Brigaitis and Cindy Rupert against their now bankrupt employer, IQT Solutions and the officers, directors, shareholders…
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with an updated version of the 2014 compensation forecast; how the principle of a pay cut without consideration prevails; and the termination of an impaired employee despite mitigating factors.
The three most viewed articles on HRinfodesk this week deal with dishonesty as cause for employee termination, the new CSA national OHS training standard and how ongoing tardiness and breach of trust justified termination for cause
On June 21, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the trial decision in Bowes v. Goss. It held that the duty to mitigate does not apply where an employment contract contains a clause setting out an employee’s severance entitlement arising from a termination without cause. However, the decision maintains the duty to mitigate where it is expressly incorporated in the employment contract.
Most employers in Ontario are aware that the Employment Standards Act imposes standards on employers with respect to the treatment of employees. However, many are not aware that they are required to display a poster issued by the Ministry of Labour titled, “What You Should Know about the Employment Standards Act.” This poster, which can be downloaded from the ministry’s website, advises employees of their rights with respect to employment standards of hours of work, wages, public holidays and more…
Manitoba’s Court of Queen’s Bench recently confirmed that a termination for cause was inappropriate, given that it was not proportional to the employee’s conduct. As a result, the employer had to pay 12 months’ severance as set out in the employment agreement regarding a termination without cause.
Most employers are familiar with the potential legal exposure to damages that arises from dismissing an employee without cause. The damages are normally quantified by the value of compensation the dismissed employee would have received during the agreed-upon or court-ordered period of reasonable notice. However, most employers would not contemplate the possibility of having to pay the dismissed employee the value of disability benefits he or she would have received under a disability insurance policy until age 65…
Most employers are aware that any dismissed employee has a duty to mitigate. Usually, this duty arises in the determination of an appropriate severance payment to an employee. Where an employee contests the severance, the duty to mitigate will undoubtedly apply as part of the matrix of calculations to be determined.
As I and others have frequently commented, there is widespread confusion and misunderstanding regarding how our courts determine the amount of notice of dismissal (sometimes referred to as “severance”) an employee is entitled to. The recent decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench in Coppola v. Capital Pontiac Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd. provides a fairly thorough analysis.
I read an interesting case recently that could be considered controversial: an employer was permitted to contract out of its human rights obligations with some vulnerable employees who were at an economic disadvantage and who experienced significant language barriers. How did the employer accomplish this? The employer added a provision in its termination letter that offered the employees consideration in exchange for signing releases preventing them from launching a human rights complaint.
Employers that dismiss employees without cause, and without ensuring that they take steps to preclude all potential claims, can face significant liability beyond the “typical” wrongful dismissal damages. The recent decision of Mr. Justice Echlin of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Brito v. Canac Kitchens is an example of the type of situation employer’s dread. In that case…