“Time theft” describes situations where an employee is paid for time they knowingly misrepresent as having been worked. Time theft may take many different forms. It could include longer-than-scheduled breaks, misrepresenting or altering records (such as timecards), or completing personal matters on paid company time. It received renewed attention during the pandemic as more employees worked remotely.

It is not uncommon for an individual to work a second job – or to take on a “side hustle” – to supplement their income. Most employers will tolerate such activities where they are non-competitive in nature, carried on outside of working hours, and do not interfere with the individual’s performance of their duties.

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its ruling in Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited. This decision deals primarily with the plaintiff’s appeal of the trial ruling that his former employer had cause to terminate his employment, and he thus had no severance entitlement.

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.

Investigations have become common occurrences in the modern workplace. Their rise in popularity has corresponded with statutory changes which require employers to investigate certain claims of misconduct (such as those related to workplace harassment or violence).

Last month, The Advocates' Quarterly published an article by Paul Willetts entitled "Tagg Industries v. Rieder: Is Storing Pornography on a Work-Issued Laptop Cause for Dismissal". The article looks at some of the lessons for employers coming from this case when asserting cause for dismissal. In particular, employers should ensure that: the misconduct relied upon for cause dismissal reflects an irreparable breach of trust; they can prove their assertion of cause (i.e. lead concrete evidence); the reasons for cause are communicated to the employee in a clear and contemporaneous fashion.

Generally speaking, employers have the right to dismiss employees that fail to report to work sober, and perform their duties in a safe manner, particularly where these requirements have been clearly communicated through written policy.

Tagg Industries v. Rieder serves as a useful reminder of the importance of proving (and communicating to employees) a termination for cause, as well as the high threshold that employers must meet in such circumstances.

Determining what conduct amounts to just cause for dismissal is no easy task. In part this is due to just cause being inherently situation specific. When describing what may constitute just cause, employment lawyers often refer to extreme examples: think of situations where a public-facing employee makes repeated racial slurs to a customer or commits major fraud in the course of their duties. Typically, such facts will prove fertile ground for successful assertions of just cause for dismissal by an employer.

Earlier this month, Vey Willetts lawyer Andrew Vey spoke with Global News about the novel implications of a recent Ontario court decision for sexual harassment complainants. 

On a recent Ontario summary judgment motion, Justice Kane considered whether a former employee of Algonquin College (the “College”) had been properly dismissed for just cause.

Q&A is a recurring series on the Vey Willetts LLP blog. The aim is to provide quick answers to questions we commonly encounter in our day-to-day practice of employment law. In this edition, we focus on wrongful dismissal from employment.

A common question employment lawyers are asked (by both employees and employers) is whether it is legal to make secret recordings while at work. A variety of circumstances may provide the motive for such action. An employee concerned they are being bullied may want to record proof of harassing comments made to them. Likewise, a supervisor may wish to secretly record the contents of a disciplinary meeting to safeguard themselves against future allegations of what was said.