In a recent decision from Windsor, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered an employer to pay almost $60,000 in damages for the way in which a female employee was repeatedly harassed, insulted and humiliated by senior management.

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.

All Ontario employers have a duty to protect employees from workplace harassment. These protections are set out in the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”).

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. 

A common question employment lawyers are asked (by both employees and employers) is whether it is legal to make secret recordings while at work. A variety of circumstances may provide the motive for such action. An employee concerned they are being bullied may want to record proof of harassing comments made to them. Likewise, a supervisor may wish to secretly record the contents of a disciplinary meeting to safeguard themselves against future allegations of what was said.

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). 

Vey Willetts lawyer Andrew Vey recently authored an article in the May 2017 edition of HR Update entitled, "Just Accommodate Me: Legal Obligations in the Accommodation Process." The article considers the roles that the employer, the employee and the union (where present) are required to play in ensuring that reasonable accommodation in the workplace is provided.

Beyond providing fair severance, one of the best things an employer can do to help a dismissed employee is to offer assistance in finding a new job. This assistance could include outplacement support, speaking with industry contacts and/or offering to provide references to prospective employers, if required. 

The Lawyer’s Daily quoted Vey Willetts' Paul Willetts in a May 26, 2017 article titled “Changing Workplaces Review may spur sweeping labour law changes in Ontario.” The article explores the recommendations set out in the Changing Workplaces Review Final Report and how these changes, if implemented, may affect Ontario employees and employers.

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.

Vey Willetts LLP is pleased to welcome Colin Marshall as a summer student for 2017. Colin has recently completed his second year at the University of Ottawa Law School and will be working with the firm over the next several months on a variety of projects. Welcome Colin!

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. 

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 employee sick leave and medical information.

Recently, Lloyd’s of London implemented a ban on employee drinking between the hours of 9am and 5pm on work days. Traditionally, the “boozy lunch” had been a big part of Lloyd’s culture. It was the preferred vehicle to seal deals and woo clients. As such, the change in policy came as a shock to the 800 employees impacted by the ban, and it was met with open hostility.