Objective medical proof not necessary for accommodation duties to arise

November 10, 2013 1 COMMENTS

By Marc Rodrigue

Under human rights legislation across the country, Canadian employers have a general duty to accommodate employees who are unable to perform their work for a period of time because of illness or disability to the point of undue hardship.

This may require an employer to grant an employee a leave of absence from the workplace. But what if the employee doesn’t provide medical documentation to justify such an absence; surely you could deny the leave? Not necessarily, according to an Ontario arbitrator in TRW Canada Ltd. and TPEA (Lockhart). read more…

Mood problem or mental disorder? When can employers discipline?

May 12, 2013 0 COMMENTS

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…

Punitive damages awards increasing in Canadian employment cases

March 31, 2013 0 COMMENTS

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…

Post-Termination Disability Benefits Reduce Severance Pay

October 26, 2011 1 COMMENTS

By Hadiya Roderique

Severance obligations can be costly for Canadian employers since most employees are entitled to notice of termination or substantial pay in lieu of notice. A tricky issue is the impact of post-termination income on the obligations of the terminating employer.

Canadian employees are often under the mistaken impression that they have an unconditional entitlement to a large lump-sum severance payment even if they were to quickly start a new job and even if they receive other income during the notice period.

read more…

Ex-Employee to Pay Employer

October 25, 2011 0 COMMENTS

By Lyne Duhaime
When an employee in Canada fails to fulfill his functions as expected, the ultimate consequence is a termination of employment “for cause,” which implies that no notice or other severance is paid to him by the employer. The Superior Court of Quebec recently went further.

In Valeurs mobilières Desjardins inc. v. Beaulne, an investment advisor was also ordered to pay his former employer, Valeurs mobilières Desjardins inc. (VMD), $141,233.96 with costs. Why? To compensate VMD for amounts it had to pay a client who suffered damages because of the advisor’s failure to follow the client’s instructions.

read more…

Notice of Termination: Must Be Clear, No Distinction for Unskilled Workers

October 16, 2011 0 COMMENTS

By Ralph Nero and Keri Bennett

Historically, the character of employment or level of position has been an important factor in determining appropriate severance payments in Canada. Unskilled or lower-level employees have typically been entitled to less severance than more highly skilled and higher-level employees.

read more…

Canadian Courts Split on Post-Employment Restrictions

October 09, 2011 0 COMMENTS

by Thora A.Sigurdson

Canadian courts continue to struggle with clauses in employment contracts that contain post-employment noncompetition and nonsolicitation clauses, known as “restrictive covenants.” This is an important issue in Canada, where there is no concept of “at will” employment, and all employees are deemed to have some form of employment contact. But not all terms are equally enforceable.

The recent split decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Globex Foreign Exchange Corporation v. Kelcher, 2011 ABCA 240, provides an interesting reminder of the uncertainty in the law in this area. It also provides good lessons to those who want employees to agree to such restrictions.

read more…

Can Canadian Employers Fire Employees for Complaints about Management?

September 25, 2011 0 COMMENTS

By Ian Campbell

There seems to have been an increase in cases where employees in Canada directly or publicly have challenged their supervisors or senior management. Maybe this is because of an increasing belief in their actual or perceived rights.

Of course employees have the right and should be encouraged to raise legitimate workplace concerns in appropriate circumstances. But recent decisions have confirmed that it’s not acceptable for employees to do so in a manner that is either disrespectful or unfairly undermines management’s integrity or reputation.

read more…

Ex Gratia Payments in Pension Plan Allowed

August 14, 2011 0 COMMENTS

By Lyne Duhaime

On June 21, 2011, in Canadian Jewish Congress v. Polger, the Court of Appeal of Quebec overturned a decision of the Superior Court that had ordered an employer to pay millions of dollars in pension benefits based only on an alleged practice and without proper written documentation to that effect. The pension benefits in this case were deemed to be ex gratia payments only, not required to be paid to all departing employees by virtue of policy or practice.

Facts
Leona Polger and Abraham Smajovits had worked for the Canadian Jewish Congress for 36 and 22 years respectively when they were dismissed following a reorganization. Not surprisingly, they sued for termination pay. They included in their action a claim for supplemental pension benefits that they said weren’t provided in their defined contribution pension plan.

read more…

Love Lost: Canadian Court Refuses to Defer Buyback of Terminated Employee’s Shares

May 09, 2011 0 COMMENTS

By Maria Giagilitsis

Ontario’s highest court recently ruled that an employer’s right to buy back a senior executive’s shares was triggered on his termination date — not the end of the reasonable notice period. Paul R. Love had argued for the later date. His shares had substantially increased in value during the notice period. Love lost.

Facts
As of the termination date, Love had worked for Acuity Investments for only two and a half years. He had accepted the position primarily because he was offered an ownership stake.

read more…

 Page 1 of 3  1  2  3 »