The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and the Courts have broken new ground in recent months, both in terms of the reach of anti-discrimination laws and the consequences for those who are found in breach. While the vast majority of employers provide respectful and inclusive workplaces, there are exceptions to this rule and sometimes, despite all best efforts, issues still arise. 

In May 2015 we wrote on a major news story about off-duty conduct coming out of Toronto:

This week a media firestorm was sparked over comments made by a Hydro One employee (Shawn Simoes) to Shauna Hunt, a CityNews Television Reporter, outside a Toronto F.C. game. Shortly after the televised exchange, Hydro One made the decision to terminate Simoes' employment.

As we noted at the time, while Mr. Simoes' public conduct was abhorrent, it was not clear that Hydro One had just cause to fire its employee for actions not directly tied to the workplace.

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.

The human rights landscape in Canada is shifting and society's view of which personal characteristics deserve protection has changed dramatically. This is the result, in part, of technological advance. New technologies can offer great economic benefit but can simultaneously expose individuals to new forms ofdiscrimination. 

A current and contentious example of this is genetic discrimination. Genetic discrimination refers to the differential treatment of individuals as a result of 'flaws' in their biological coding, exposed through genetic testing. Genetic testing is a method of diagnosis; a person's DNA is examined to confirm a suspected genetic condition or to determine the probability that a person will develop a genetic disorder.

We are thrilled to announce that Ross Dunsmore has joined with Vey Willetts LLP as Senior Counsel to the firm. Ross has a wealth of experience in labour and employment law, having practiced exclusively in the area for 40 years. Ross has been recognized by LEXPERT as one of the top labour relations lawyers in Ontario, and brings a breadth of knowledge to everything from grievances and human rights complaints to wrongful dismissals. In addition to working with Vey Willetts, Ross will continue to run his own busy practice.

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 Tuesday, August 4 - the same day that Netflix stock hit a record high, the company announced a decision through its blog to provide paid maternity and paternity leave for its employees, up to one year. Netflix stated:

We're introducing an unlimited leave policy for new moms and dads that allows them to take off as much time as they want during the first year after a child's birth or adoption. 

We want employees to have the flexibility and confidence to balance the needs of their growing families without worrying about work or finances. Parents can return part-time, full-time, or return and then go back out as needed.

The company's decision is ground-breaking in many ways. It also reflects the desire of many new parents, in the US and Canada, for flexibility to focus on nurturing their newborn without financial stress.

Vey Willetts LLP is celebrating its One-Year Anniversary!

Thank you to every single one of our clients - past and present, individuals and businesses - for placing your trust in us. We have thoroughly enjoyed representing you, and helping you successfully navigate many challenging workplace issues.

Our business continues to grow and we look forward to servicing Eastern Ontario with responsive, practical and affordable employment law advice for many years to come. 

Vey Willetts lawyer Paul Willetts was quoted in the August 10, 2015 edition of Canadian HR Reporter in an article entitled "Sexual harassment damages see gains". The article discusses two recent decisions in which damages were awarded for sexual harassment and whether they signify a trend towards increasingly large damages awards.

In the article, Paul notes that "the facts that were presented in those cases precipitated the results that occurred so I think, to a certain extent, that's why you saw a larger damages award."

One of the most common complaints employment lawyers hear from workers who have just lost their jobs is that they don't know why they were fired. Many become even more aggravated when they ask for a reason and are told 'we don't have to give you one.' Unsurprisingly, this type of response can often result in the now ex-employee imagining all kinds of innovative rationales as to explain their dismissal.

Pursuant to the Employment Standards Act, which applies to most Ontario employers, there is no requirement to tell dismissed employees' why they are being fired. Accordingly, 'we don't have to tell you' can be a valid response [1].

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 the day to day practice of being neck deep in workplace law. In this edition we focus on employment insurance ("EI") claims. 

Most workers are entitled to claim EI regular benefits (sometimes still called 'unemployment insurance' or 'UI') when they lose their job through no fault of their own. However, the process to access benefits can often be a slow and frustrating one. Below we answer some of the most frequent questions we get from individuals about EI benefits.

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.

It is pretty rare that an employee will receive a severance package worth more than 2-years of their salary. In fact, it is generally agreed that there is an informal '24 month cap' on the amount of pay that a dismissed employee will receive in severance.

That said, there are exceptions to every rule. A recent case from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Markoulakis v. SNC Lavalin Inc., illustrates what circumstances may produce a severance entitlement above the 24-month cap.

This week a media firestorm was sparked over comments made by a Hydro One employee (Shawn Simoes) to Shauna Hunt, a CityNews Television Reporter, outside a Toronto F.C. game. Shortly after the televised exchange, Hydro One made the decision to terminate Simoes' employment.

Mr. Simoes was present when another man yelled into Ms. Hunt's Microphone during a live broadcast, "F__k her right in the p___y." Yelling this phrase, abbreviated to FHRITP, was popularized in a series of fake news reports in early 2014. Ms. Hunt, visibly upset at this act, challenged Mr. Simoes and his friends who had stood close by. Mr. Simoes did not repeat the phrase but said on live television to Ms. Hunt that what had transpired was "f____ hilarious." Before adding "you're lucky there's not a f___ vibrator here."

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.