By Katherine Pollock

A recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Stanley v. Advertising Directory Solutions, considered the rights of an employee of a U.S. company who was working for a Canadian subsidiary when terminated. The court found she was entitled to notice or pay in lieu of notice upon termination according to Canadian law. This despite a written agreement with the U.S. parent that said she was employed at will.

The court ruled that an agreement with a U.S. parent company won’t permit a Canadian company, which is also the person’s employer, to avoid its obligation to provide reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice of termination. read more…

By Kyla Stott-Jess

Employers in Canada can’t discriminate against employees based on mental disabilities. But the broad interpretation that courts and arbitration boards frequently apply to human rights laws often makes it difficult to know where the boundaries of “mental disability” lie.

In a recent arbitration decision in Ontario, Windsor (City) and WPFFA (Elliot), the arbitrator found that an employee’s mood problems and stress issues weren’t classifiable as mental disorders. He didn’t qualify as having a mental health disability requiring accommodation. read more…

By Michel Bellemare

Every job has its own peculiarities. What might be a minor shortcoming in one type of employment could be catastrophic in another. This is especially true when the breach touches on the very heart of the duties assigned to an employee. This, at least, is what an employee learned in a recent Quebec case: Mardik v. Nova Bus. (2013 QCCS 1152; decision available in French only). read more…

By David McDonald

In wrongful dismissal cases in Canada, punitive damages awards are available only in exceptional situations. That’s what the Supreme Court of Canada said in 2008 in Honda Canada v. Keays. The employer’s conduct in the course of termination must be proven to be harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, and malicious. Despite this high threshold, a number of recent trial decisions show how Canadian courts are becoming more open to providing employees with punitive damages awards. read more…

By Karen Sargeant

We all know proving cause for termination in Canada is difficult. Poor performance rarely equates to cause. And employees seem to be entitled to warnings in most cases. But surely it is cause if an employee slaps another. Not so, according to one Ontario judge in Shakur v. Mitchell Plastics. read more…

By Michel Bellemare

Last fall, we reported on the mysteries of mitigation. Those articles (“When do employees have a duty to mitigate termination claim?” and “More mysteries of mitigation”) reported on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Bowes v. Goss Power Products Ltd. that confirmed that the duty to mitigate doesn’t necessarily apply where employment contracts contain specific termination payments and the employment relationship is terminated without cause. read more…

By Karen Sargeant

You’ve terminated an employee’s employment without cause and offered a reasonable package. You’ve negotiated a settlement, prepared the settlement documentation, and paid out the severance. You thought you dotted all your i’s and crossed all your t’s, but you forgot one crucial part – the former employee never signed the release you prepared. read more…

by Nicola Sutton

When the employment relationship becomes impossible to perform because of a factor outside the control of a Canadian employer or employee, the employee’s employment can be terminated by virtue of frustration of contract. When an employee won’t be able to return to work because of injury or illness, the same applies. But not so for federally regulated employers such as banks, airlines, inter-provincial trucking companies, etc.

According to the recent decision of Kingsway Transport v. Teamsters, Local Union 91, the frustration argument is no longer available for those employers when the employee’s inability to return to work is because of a work-related injury or illness. read more…

by Isabelle East-Richard

Throughout Canada, whether under article 2088 of the Civil Code of Québec in Quebec or the common law elsewhere, employees have a duty to act faithfully and honestly toward their employer once the employment relationship has ended. That is the case even when there is no noncompetition clause in an employment contract.

Although some have thought that this duty to act faithfully and honestly may give employers protection against competition from their former employees, that protection may be limited. Indeed, in 9129-3845 Québec inc., the Quebec Court of Appeal recently said that it was reasonable for such a duty to last only three months following the termination of employment.

read more…

by Kyla Stott-Jess

Is a Canadian employer justified in terminating an employee for cause when that employee has disobeyed company policy? What if the consequences of the employee’s failure to follow policy put other employees at serious risk of harm? Not necessarily, said the Ontario Supreme Court recently in Barton v. Rona Ontario Inc.

Rather, the potential severity of any misconduct must be balanced against the employee’s attitude and past history when evaluating whether termination for cause is warranted.

Background

Kerry Barton was a longtime employee of Rona until the company fired him for cause in 2009. At the time of termination, Barton was the assistant store manager in Barrie, Ontario, and was responsible for managing about 140 employees. He had received good performance appraisals and had no disciplinary record. read more…