Employee handbooks can be a useful tool in managing the workplace. When done properly, they offer a number of advantages, such as helping to: formalize various processes (fostering consistency and transparency); reduce the risk of arbitrary decision-making and/or favouritism; promote legal compliance; reinforce company culture and values; and defend against potential employee claims and/or complaints.

It is an unfortunate reality that most employers, should they operate long enough, will eventually be confronted with some form of employee misconduct. This article delves deep into one particular type of misconduct: insubordination. To that end, below we will review what “insubordination” entails, consider two brief case studies (one where insubordination was made out, and the other which resulted in wrongful dismissal) and conclude by reviewing employer best practices for responding to insubordination in the workplace.

In a recent decision, Wilds v. 1959612 Ontario Inc., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded punitive damages against an employer for its conduct at, and following, the time of termination. In so doing, the court provided a helpful reminder for employers to meet their lawful obligations when ending the employment relationship or risk exposure to additional liability.

Workplace discrimination can take many forms and may include situations where an employee is the target of unintentional discriminatory behaviour informed by unconscious bias. Unconscious bias refers to social stereotypes about groups of people that individuals form outside of their own conscious awareness.

While workplace investigations can play an important role in addressing discrimination, they also have the inadvertent potential to further discriminatory conduct through unconscious bias. 

When an employee termination is conducted, most employers focus on determining contractual severance entitlements and ensuring compliance with statutory requirements. In so doing, their aim is to limit any potential claims for wrongful dismissal. By contrast, less thought tends to be given to return of property. This is not an unreasonable state of affairs, as in most cases, return of property (whether it be employer-owned assets or employee personal effects) occurs with little fuss. But what happens when employers encounter intransigent former employees who refuse to return their property?

As August rolls by, many of us are heading to cottages, beaches, and other exotic places to enjoy some well-earned R&R in the sun. For most (not within the blessed leisure classes) this means requesting time away from work and using our paid vacation time.

Due to recent changes to the Canada Labour Code (the “Code”), federally regulated employers are now required to provide workers with written “employment statements”.

From time to time, it may make sense for employers to revise and renew their employment agreements for existing staff. Updating contracts needs to be handled carefully and, as such, this article offers tips and best practices for this process.  

We often come across fixed-term contracts in our legal practice. Employers have varying reasons for wanting to use such agreements. Perhaps funding for an employee is tied to third party grants, or an employer wants to temporarily replace an existing worker during their period of maternity leave. Whatever the justification, we generally advise employers to think twice before using fixed-term contracts.

It is common for employers to include language in their staff contracts to help safeguard business interests. This may take the form of obligations to protect confidential information and/or refrain from soliciting staff, suppliers and/or clients after the employment relationship ends.

The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) was a form of income replacement offered by the Government of Canada at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible recipients could receive $2,000.00 per month during the program’s 28-week duration (which ran from March to September 2020).

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.

In Pham v. Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd., 2023 ONCA 255, the Court of Appeal for Ontario recently issued an important ruling regarding the law of unpaid temporary layoffs.

Workers are usually categorized as an employee or a contractor. Each category comes with its own distinct set of entitlements and obligations. Generally speaking, a contractor is someone in business for themselves, while an employee works for the benefit of another’s business.

Our firm is often retained by employees and employers to provide advice on dismissal entitlements. One of the first places we look in this regard is to the parties’ written employment contract (if one exists). Employers have an incentive to implement written contracts as a means of limiting future dismissal costs. For similar reasons, contracts often come under heavy scrutiny by employees (and their lawyers) whenever a job termination takes place.

Hirings and firings are common to workplaces across Ontario. For various reasons, people come and go. Employment dismissals, however, when mishandled, can bring with them significant risk and result in unintended liability.

When drafted carefully, written employment contracts can be helpful tools. They provide a clear view of the intended relationship and proactively address common issues that may arise. In so doing, contracts offer transparency and reduce the risk of future disputes.

ChatGPT (an artificial intelligence language generator financed by Microsoft) has captured the world’s attention. By inputting prompts in plain language, ChatGPT can do a seemingly endless series of tasks. Some are quite mundane – such as answering questions – while others could be revolutionary for automating common and labour-intensive work.