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 This lesson was learned the hard way by Qualified Metal Fabricators ("QML") in a recent unpublished case out of Toronto.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.

In our article last month, we discussed the growing attention being paid to the issue of unpaid internships in Ontario. Since then the Ontario Ministry of Labour has released the results of a second workplace blitz designed to assess whether employers in the province are in compliance with the requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 ("ESA").

The first heavily publicized blitz on unpaid internships was carried out in the summer of 2014. At that time, the Ministry investigated 56 different employers. Of those, 13 were found to be improperly using unpaid internships. It was found that the individuals in question were employees and entitled that the normal protections that workers receive. In total, the Ministry ordered that $48,000 was owed in unpaid wages, vacation pay and/or public holiday pay.

VW lawyer Paul Willetts authored an article in the May 2016 edition of HR Update entitled, "Human Rights Law Today: Guidance for Individuals and Employers." The article discusses steps that employers can take to limit liability in the workplace and provides some practical reminders to employees about their entitlements at work around accommodation and protection from 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.

The use of unpaid internships by some employers has become increasingly common over the past decade. Unlike employees, interns do not receive the same legal protections, nor do they receive a salary, vacation pay or overtime pay. An intern's only compensation is opportunity and experience. 

The use of unpaid interns has come under increased media and political scrutiny. Fuelled by horror stories of young interns collapsing under extreme workplace pressures, the issue reached the political agenda. In the summer of 2014, the Ontario Ministry of Labour carried out a highly publicized workplace inspection blitz to determine if intern rights were being respected.

Businesses are bought and sold all the time. From small 'mom and pop' shops through to multi-national operations. If your workplace is (or has been) sold, it is important to understand how this may affect your rights as an employee.

We often work for individuals who have been let go from a workplace that has been operated by more than one business owner during their tenure. Your severance entitlements can be significantly impacted by the way the business changed hands, and how the vendor and purchaser dealt with liability for employee severance.

In the course of practice, we have repeatedly seen employers make two fundamental mistakes when it comes to provision of commission pay: 1) not properly providing for vacation pay in the calculation of commission payments; and 2) failing to ensure commission payments comply with minimum wage requirements. While employer errors of this kind may be innocent or unintentional, significant financial liability can accrue as a result.

Spring time is just around the corner, and with the tulips and spring bulbs comes one of our most favourite things - TAX TIME.

Tax Deductions for Legal Fees

Did you know that you may be able to deduct from your income taxes a portion of legal fees incurred in your employment law matter? If you paid legal fees in relation to securing entitlements from your former employer, you may be further entitled to a deduction on your T-1 return to the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA").

Vey Willetts lawyer Paul Willetts was quoted in a recent Yahoo! Finance Canada article considering pay equity in the workplace. The article, Why Canada Ranks a Dismal 30th in Pay Equity, considers pay inequality experienced by women at work, why this phenomenon exists, and what may be done to address it.

In the article, amongst other things, Paul comments on how an individual may wish to raise concerns about salary; noting that "practically speaking, the best thing to do would be to raise the issue in a professional manner with an appropriate person within your organization. Provide your employer an opportunity to respond and correct the situation, or to provide its justification for the differential in pay."

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.

Having a baby can be one of the most exciting things in life. Along with the excitement of the new family member, however, come many new challenges:

Will I go on maternity leave? How long can I take off work? Can I afford to be off work? What benefits and top-up can I get? Do I need accommodation at work during my pregnancy? How will I make the transition back into my job? 

These concerns put pressure on parents-to-be. Recognizing this, the following Q&A session tries to answer some common questions that employees may have about maternity leave and work.

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."