A recent decision from Ontario's Court of Appeal, North v. Metaswitch Networks Corporation, confirms how the courts in our province will assess an employee's severance entitlement where his/her employment was governed by a written agreement that includes a termination provision.

A dismissal from employment is rarely pleasant for anyone involved. Frustration, anxiety and hurt feelings are all common by-products. But how do we assess whether an employee has suffered harm beyond the ordinary due to a poorly handled termination?

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 how to navigate the loss of a job and ensure that you receive a fair severance package.

Vey Willetts lawyer Paul Willetts was quoted in the August 21, 2017 edition of the Ottawa Metro News. The article, "Be Warned, Job Seekers: There is Such a Thing as a Bad Reference", considers a recent Ontario court case in which the owner of a company provided a negative reference to a prospective employer for an employee that it had recently fired. The prospective employer relied on the negative reference and decided not to offer a job to the individual. Consequently, the individual sued for wrongful dismissal and defamation.

Vey Willetts LLP is pleased to announce the launch of the first Severance Pay Calculator tailored specifically for the needs of employees and businesses in Ottawa and Eastern Ontario. 

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Brake v RJ-M2R Restaurant Inc. This is an important decision for employees and employers alike as it may potentially change the way in which Ontario courts assess a wrongfully dismissed employee’s mitigation efforts and their consequent entitlement to additional severance. Mitigation refers to the obligation of dismissed employees to look for alternate comparable employment. Feldman J.A.’s concurring reasons, in particular, suggest that where a dismissed employee accepts an inferior job, any earnings therein may not count as ‘mitigation income’.

Section 54 of the Ontario Employment Standards Act requires that employers in the province must provide either notice or pay in lieu of notice, up to a maximum of 8 weeks, if they dismiss an employee (except in cases of serious employee misconduct). 

A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal, Roberts v. Zoomermedia Limited, dealt with the unusual situation of a defendant employer arguing that its own contractual termination provision was unenforceable and thus the plaintiff employee was entitled to common law reasonable notice. Employees frequently challenge the enforceability of a termination provision to seek common law notice, however, it is rare that an employer would do the same.

Last month, The Advocates' Quarterly published an article by Vey Willetts' lawyer, Paul Willetts. Willetts' article, entitled "Punitive Damages in Morison v. Ergo-Industrial Seating: The New 'Wallace Bump'?", looks at whether the Ontario courts are increasingly using punitive damages as a vehicle to award former employee's compensation for "bad faith" employer conduct in dismissal, as aggravated damages (arguably the appropriate vehicle) are more difficult to attain.

A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice touches upon a little discussed area of employment law. Specifically, when does the limitation period clock start running for a claim of wrongful dismissal?

In the recent decision of Covenoho v. Pendylum Ltd., the Ontario Court of Appeal awarded a former employee of Pendylum 40 weeks' pay ($56,000.00), overturning the ruling of the Motion Judge at summary judgment. 

There are few areas of employment law more in flux (and vexing to lawyers) than that surrounding the enforcement of termination clauses. Part of the frustration is when the Courts provide seemingly contradictory messages on whether termination clauses will be upheld. In January 2017 alone, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released two decisions that appear, on their face, to be somewhat at odds. 

On February 6, 2017 the Ontario Bar Association Labour & Employment Law Section published an article by Vey Willetts' lawyer Andrew Vey. The article, entitled "Summary Judgment Motions for Wrongful Dismissal: An Update", looks at four recent Ontario court cases to assess the use of summary judgement as a tool in employment law litigation.

Vey Willetts LLP was recently successful on a motion for summary judgment, seeking increased severance for an employee who had been wrongfully dismissed. In its decision, Vinette v. Delta Printing Limited (2017 ONSC 182), the Superior Court significantly increased Mr. Vinette's severance entitlement from 8 weeks to 15 months.

Vey Willetts lawyer Paul Willetts was quoted in the November 28, 2016 edition of Canadian HR Reporter in an article entitled "Older Employees Deserve More". The article discusses the recent Ontario Superior Court decision of Ozorio v. Canadian Hearing Society. In this case, a 60-year old senior managerial employee, with 30 years service was dismissed. Ms. Ozorio was ultimately awarded 24 months of reasonable notice. To read our recent review of the case and its implications for older workers please click here.

In the recent decision of Morison v Ergo-Industrial Seating Systems Inc. the Ontario Superior Court of Justice made an award of $50,000.00 in punitive damages against the defendant employer. This decision is an important reminder to all Ontario employers of the type of conduct which may attract punitive damages.

Fixed term employment contracts can serve a useful purpose within an organization. They permit employers to limit the engagement of an employee to a set project or a fixed period of time. In circumstances where there is a significant fluctuation in annual work volume or where temporary staff are required to offset absences (such as due to illness or a parental leave) fixed term contracts may be ideal.

Many Ontario employees receive some form of bonus payment as part of their total compensation. In a recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal, Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc., the Court provided clarity around the circumstances in which an employee will be entitled to receive bonus payments as part of their severance during the applicable notice period.