Employers who fail to incorporate a binding termination clause into their written employment agreements may face significant, and unexpected, liability for severance. This lesson was learned the hard way by Qualified Metal Fabricators ("QML") in a recent unpublished case out of Toronto. 

QML employed Mr. Roy Singh as an assembler from May 2011 until his dismissal, due to an alleged shortage of work, in May 2015. Upon termination, QML paid Mr. Singh 4 weeks' termination pay in compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and allegedly the terms of his written employment agreement.

Jose Mourinho: the self-proclaimed 'Special One', former Chelsea boss and brand-new Manchester United manager. In addition to his many successes, Mr. Mourinho is no stranger to controversy. In the most recent Premier League season after seeing his Chelsea side lose nine of the first sixteen league games, he was unceremoniously dismissed.

Shortly before his own dismissal, Mourinho became one half of a very public dispute with Dr. Eva Carneiro. Dr. Carneiro had been employed with Chelsea since 2009, before leaving her position as first team doctor in September 2015 and alleging constructive dismissal. In addition, Dr. Carneiro's lawsuit included an individual claim against Mourinho for sex discrimination and harassment.

One of the most important clauses in any employment contract is the Termination Clause. This provision sets out the terms under which both parties may end the employment relationship at some unspecified future point in time.

As an employer, failing to include a provision of this kind can significantly increase your exposure to liability. Specifically, you lose the opportunity to limit the amount of severance an employee can seek upon termination. The absence of an enforceable termination provision results in the dismissed employee being entitled to 'reasonable notice' of termination.

In February 2015 we wrote about a case where a former employee was ordered to pay $56,116.11 as a result of his failure to give reasonable notice of resignation. While these so-called wrongful resignation cases are rare, they should give anyone contemplating a hasty exit from their workplace second thoughts. 

However, as evidenced by a recent decision out of Sudbury, employers too should think twice prior to going to court on the basis of wrongful resignation.

One of the most complicated legal questions for employers is whether their operations are regulated by federal or provincial workplace rules. The answer to this question can have broad implications for employers, as the requirements of provincial workplace laws can differ considerably from their federal counterparts. The confusion over jurisdiction stems from Canada's division of powers between its varying levels of government. While the Constitution Act, 1867 (the "Constitution") does provide a helpful list of federal and provincial powers it is far from complete.

First Nations employers (this term is used here in a broad sense) in Canada have had a particularly tough time on the jurisdictional front. At first glance, the Constitution provides the federal government power over "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians." But at the same time, the Constitution is silent on which level of government is responsible for labour and employment issues. Had the founding fathers of Confederation been clearer on this point, it would have spared lawyers and employers a lot of future pain.

When the T-1000 came from the future to destroy John Connor, Arnie made sure he was stopped in his tracks. While employers who have to date relied upon prohibitive time and costs to deter ex-employee claims might not face the wrath that Skynet did, given the recent decision of Cloutier v. Q Residential LP Corp, 2015 ONSC 4431 (CanLII), a rethinking of such approaches may be required. 

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), summary judgment has become a common tool in straightforward employment law matters. In Hryniak, the Court was explicit that summary judgment should be used whenever there "is no genuine issue requiring a trial."

Workplace privacy has become a significant issue for individuals and businesses alike. This is due in part to an increased use of workplace biometrics, the proliferation of social media and smartphone technology, the loss of the traditional '9-5' workplace, and the consequent blurring of work and private life.

Prior to the Court of Appeal's decision in Jones v. Tsige many of us in Ontario had relatively minimal privacy protection at work.

Recent changes to the law in Ontario may now offer better protection and more expeditious resolution to those that have been wrongfully dismissed. These changes are well-illustrated in a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice: Zoldowski v. Strongco Corporation.

Ms. Jennifer Zoldowski worked for Strongco for 17 years before she was dismissed in February 2015. Her dismissal was necessitated by improvements to the Defendant's electronic inventory management system, which rendered Ms. Zoldowski's role obsolete. At the time of termination, Ms. Zoldwski was 39 years old and employed as a Parts Administrator. Following termination, Ms. Zoldowski applied to many jobs around the GTA without success.

The 2015 federal election is now less than a week away. Notable in the race so far (at least from our perspective) has been the prominence of workplace issues, and the corresponding employment law implications. Indeed, one of the most blistering exchanges in the first half of the campaign was with respect to the federal minimum wage.

This article aims to review a number of workplace-related election promises made to date by the three main parties. That said, this is by no means a comprehensive list of all party policies with respect to the workplace - rather, we have just highlighted a few of particular interest. For those interested, access to all three parties' platforms can be found here.

Summary judgment can be an invaluable tool for individuals who lose their job. Unlike the traditional litigation route, trudging labouriously through mediation and discoveries to trial, it allows for expedient and cost-effective resolution of straightforward employment disputes.

Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure provides for summary judgement "where there is no genuine issue requiring a trial." Last year, following amendments to the rule, the Supreme Court in Hryniak v. Mauldin revisited its application and confirmed that it "must be granted whenever there is no genuine issue requiring a trial."

On May 22, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario awarded what is one of its largest damages awards to date. The facts that precipitated this result are both atrocious and a poignant reminder that sexual violence and harassment still persists in the workplace.

The case in question, O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods Ltd., involved O.P.T & M.P.T. - two sisters who came to Ontario from Mexico as temporary foreign workers to labour at a fish processing plant in Wheatley. In addition to bringing an application against the company, the sisters also named Mr. Jose Pratas, the owner of Presteve, as a personal respondent.

There is a reason that Canadian courts refer to just cause for dismissal as the "capital punishment of employment law." The implications can be grave. If you are fired for just cause, you will likely face a number of problems. These can include your former employer refusing to provide severance, Service Canada denying your application for Employment Insurance ("EI") benefits and potential negative work references while seeking re-employment.

It is an all too common story. You prepared for the job interview. You got all of the questions right. All you have to do is sign on the bottom line and you do, because it is just a formality, isn't it? And you don't want to rock the boat before you even have your first day at work.

Something like the fictional sequence of events above will sound familiar to most people. It is very rare for employees to push back at the time of hire about the terms of their employment. However, you can expect that when an employer puts an employment contract in front of you, it is designed to protect the company's interests and not your own. The next time you have to consider signing an employment contract, watch out for these five key items.

When employers think of reasonable notice, they tend to be concerned with whether sufficient notice of dismissal is provided by the employer to the employee. However, an important subject that garners far less attention is what notice a departing employee must provide to the employer. 

The duty to provide reasonable notice of resignation is one implied by the common law. It has no equivalent in Ontario employment law legislation, such as the statutory notice employers are obliged to provide (at a minimum) when dismissing an employee. Regardless, whether through popular convention of television and media, or some other social norm, there exists a perception that a departing employee must give their 'two weeks' notice.' The question for employers is whether such notice is sufficient and, if not, what can they do about the problem?

Mitigation is a legal concept and can be difficult to understand. With this in mind, this article seeks to lay out clearly what the duty to mitigate requires and what it may mean for you.

Misconduct at work is typically met with discipline or, if particularly bad, perhaps dismissal. There are occasions, however, where employee misconduct will also merit criminal charges. One such high profile example is R. v. Cole where Mr. Cole, a high school teacher, was found to have stored nude and semi-nude photos of an underage female student on his work-provided laptop. Mr. Cole lost his job and was charged with possession of child pornography.

A more recent criminal case that was borne out of workplace misconduct, and resulted in termination and criminal charges, is R. v. Dewan. This case came before the Ontario Court of Appeal in October 2014.