By Bruce Grist

Conventional wisdom suggests that because a nonsolicitation clause is more likely than a noncompete clause to be enforced by a Canadian court, why bother including a noncompete clause in an employment agreement? The British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in Edward Jones v. Voldeng suggests that there is still value in including a noncompete clause. Why? It may be easier to demonstrate irreparable harm, one of the requirements to obtain an injunction, when a former employee has breached a noncompete clause. read more…

By Ralph N. Nero and Keri L. Bennett

When is a layoff not a layoff? When it is a constructive dismissal, according to an Ontario judge. McLean v. The Rawyal Limited Partnership reaffirms the principle that unless incorporated as an express or implied term of the employment contract, a layoff may be treated as constructive dismissal–meaning the employee can sue for pay in lieu of reasonable notice.

read more…

by Keri Bennett

As we reported previously, the Canadian federal government is about to join most of the provinces in making mandatory retirement, for the most part, unlawful. That deadline is fast approaching – December 15, 2012. What can employers do until then? According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, very little.

Human Rights Commission news release

Earlier this year, the Canadian Human Rights Commission issued a news release cautioning employers against using the time leading up to December 15 to force employees to retire before they are ready to. In the release, Acting Chief Commissioner David Langtry said that “[t]he transition period should not be viewed as a license to force aging workers out the door. Forcing someone to retire because of their age clearly contradicts Parliament’s intent, even if a defence in the law still appears to be available.” read more…

by Emilie Paquin-Holmested

Generally when employees decide to leave their jobs, they are considered to have quit. But in Canada, if they leave their jobs because the employer substantially changed essential terms of their employment, they are considered to have been constructively dismissed.

The line separating these two notions is often unclear. It’s especially so when terms of employment are changed after a corporate merger or integration. In a recent decision (St-Hilaire c. Nexxlink inc.), the Court of Appeal of Quebec reviewed the principles of constructive dismissal in this very context. read more…

by Karen Sargeant and Clayton Jones

Last week, we reported on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Bowes v. Goss Power Products Ltd., which found that an employee does not have a duty to mitigate where an employment contract contains a fixed severance entitlement but no express requirement to mitigate.

The Court of Appeal relied on a number of factors in coming to this conclusion, which should provide a clear warning to employers across the country. This article sets out those factors and suggests ways in which employers can make their employment agreements or offer letters more bullet-proof. read more…

by Keri Bennett

It has been a fundamental principle of employment law that terminated employees generally have an obligation to seek alternate employment to minimize or mitigate their resulting losses. Their right to get from the terminating employer the pay they would have received during a period of reasonable notice is usually net of any other earnings during that period. But does this same rule apply where a contract specifies the employee’s severance entitlement?

In an important recent decision, Bowes v. Goss Power Products Ltd., the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the duty to mitigate does not, in fact, apply where employment contracts contain specific termination payments and the employment relationship is terminated without cause. This is important because Canadian law on this point has been mixed. read more…

by Ralph N. Nero and Keri L. Bennett

Many of our recent articles have focused on decisions involving employees’ breaches or threatened breaches of restrictive covenants. Including restrictive covenants, such as nonsolicitation and noncompetition covenants, into employment contracts is important for employers to protect their business interests.

In order to be enforceable, however, such covenants must be tailored to the specific business needs of the employer and the context of the individual employment relationship. This article steps back and takes a look at the governing principles.

  read more…

by Louise Béchamp

As a Québec employer recently learned, an alleged breach in the relationship of trust between employer and employee must be supported by objective evidence and facts if it is to form cause for termination of employment. In Senécal vs. CEGEP du Vieux Montréal, 2012 QCCS 1995, the employer was ordered to pay significant damages to Francine Senécal following her termination on that ground, in the absence of the required evidence to support their concerns.

Facts

In 2001, Senécal left her career in post secondary education to enter into municipal politics. She was elected as a counselor for Montréal and became vice president of the city’s executive committee. Throughout her term in office, Senécal’s spouse worked in a senior management position for the city’s housing and development corporation (in French, the “Société d’habitation et de développement de Montréal” or SHDM).

After 7 years in public life, Senécal decided she wanted to resume her career and applied for the position of director general of the CEGEP du Vieux Montréal. Senécal was the successful candidate. In October 2008, the CEGEP appointed her to a 5-year term, to begin in January 2009, so she resigned from public office. read more…

By Jaclyn McNamara and Marisa Victor

Your employees have access to all kinds of sensitive company information. But what can you do if they leave and use that information to unfairly compete against your company?

read more…

By Kyla Stott-Jess and Devin Crisanti

Post-employment restrictions can be tricky to enforce. But if drafted properly, they can be valuable. As one Alberta employer recently discovered in ADM Measurements Ltd. v. Bullet Electric LTD, relying on implied fiduciary duties to do the job of contractual restrictions can be a pricey gamble.

read more…