Among the changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic was an increased normalization of virtual meetings.

I can count on one hand the number of Zoom or Teams meetings I attended before March 2020. In 2023, by contrast, virtual meetings are an almost everyday occurrence.

Individuals in Ontario have a duty to mitigate their loss of employment when seeking damages for wrongful (or constructive) dismissal. In practical terms this means that while employees may be able to seek damages from their former employer (to put them in the position they would have been had they received adequate notice of termination), they must make reasonable efforts to replace their lost income by looking for, and accepting, other comparable work.  

Losing a job can be an upsetting experience. This may be especially so where the individual in question had been employed for a long time, was part of a small tight-knit team, or the decision came seemingly out of the blue.

January has been a difficult month for many Ontarians. In addition to the short days, snow, and cold, we are dealing with rising interest rates and, for a significant number, loss of employment.

As we have written in an earlier article, a relatively common question employment lawyers receive (from both employees and employers) is whether it is lawful to secretly record conversations at work. Individuals may be motivated to take this step for a number of reasons, such as trying to capture evidence of misconduct, or to safeguard against allegations arising from a contentious meeting.

In wrongful dismissal cases, absent a lawful written contractual entitlement, the courts conduct an individualized assessment to determine what would be reasonable notice of the dismissal. In a recent contribution to First Reference Talks (a collaborative HR and employment law advisory blog), Paul Willetts highlighted two wrongful dismissal cases where the short-service plaintiffs who otherwise differed significantly (in terms of age, compensation and character of employment), both received a 2.5 month notice period.

People quit their jobs at various times and for various reasons. Often, when a worker quits his/her job they provide their employer with a written letter or an email confirming their decision to resign on a specified future date with the intention of continuing to work until that date.

The decision to terminate an individual’s employment is not an easy one. At times, however, whether due to economic pressures, or poor performance, it may nevertheless be necessary.

The process your organization follows when carrying out a termination of employment is important. It can have a big impact on the affected individual and, if done carefully, can reduce the potential risk of liability to your organization.

The legal doctrine of frustration of contract is well known to employment lawyers but its application is not all that intuitive to the average employer or employee. In the recent case of Hoekstra v. Rehability Occupational Therapy Inc., 2019 ONSC 562, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to revisit this doctrine and opine as to whether an employee, as compared to an employer, can ever assert frustration to end an employment relationship.

We are not long into 2019 and yet one thing already seems clear – the law concerning employment contract termination clauses will continue to be the focus of a great deal of litigation in Ontario. In just the past few months alone, new decisions from the Superior Court have helped to advance the law and provide further guidance to employers on proper drafting of termination clauses.

In a previous blog entry, we wrote about the laws surrounding secret recordings in the workplace. As we cautioned: “[b]efore creating such recordings, be sure to think carefully about the necessity of the action and check whether any workplace policies may be engaged.”