Last week, Vey Willetts lawyer, Paul Willetts, was interviewed by Global National News as part of a report looking at the Canadian Union of Postal Workers’ vote to certify couriers working for Foodora (an app-based food delivery company) in Toronto and Mississauga.

The majority of employment disputes are resolved long before they ever reach a court room. Usually, the former employee will agree to accept a sum of money from their previous employer in exchange for executing a release agreement. While the substance of release agreements can vary, they generally share two similarities:

1. No further liability: The individual agrees that upon receipt of an agreed payment, he/she shall have no further right to seek additional compensation as a result of their employment, or the termination thereof; and

2. Confidentiality: The individual agrees to keep the terms of settlement confidential.

The decision to terminate an individual’s employment is not an easy one. At times, however, whether due to economic pressures, or poor performance, it may nevertheless be necessary.

The process your organization follows when carrying out a termination of employment is important. It can have a big impact on the affected individual and, if done carefully, can reduce the potential risk of liability to your organization.

Restrictive covenants (such as non-competition and non-solicitation clauses) are a common feature of many employment agreements. It is relatively rare, however, that companies resort to litigation to enforce these requirements by way of an injunction. This may be down to the costs associated with doing so, or that the required legal threshold to obtain an injunction is high.

Hiring a new worker can be exciting. Presumably, by the time you make the job offer, something about the candidate has impressed you and suggested this person is the one for the job. Similarly, most hires are eager for the opportunity to work with you – that’s why they applied for and accepted the job!

Last month, The Advocates' Quarterly published an article by Paul Willetts entitled "Tagg Industries v. Rieder: Is Storing Pornography on a Work-Issued Laptop Cause for Dismissal". The article looks at some of the lessons for employers coming from this case when asserting cause for dismissal. In particular, employers should ensure that: the misconduct relied upon for cause dismissal reflects an irreparable breach of trust; they can prove their assertion of cause (i.e. lead concrete evidence); the reasons for cause are communicated to the employee in a clear and contemporaneous fashion.

Generally speaking, employers have the right to dismiss employees that fail to report to work sober, and perform their duties in a safe manner, particularly where these requirements have been clearly communicated through written policy.

Much legal ink has been spilled over the past year about the impact of cannabis legalization on the workplace (see our overview here). At the end of the day, however, the basic rules of the game have not changed. Employees still cannot expect to attend at work while intoxicated. Employers can still insist on sobriety in the workplace. And safety-concerns regarding how to structure operations remain a foremost consideration in any workplace (and in fact are mandated by operation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act).

The legal doctrine of frustration of contract is well known to employment lawyers but its application is not all that intuitive to the average employer or employee. In the recent case of Hoekstra v. Rehability Occupational Therapy Inc., 2019 ONSC 562, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to revisit this doctrine and opine as to whether an employee, as compared to an employer, can ever assert frustration to end an employment relationship.

Social media platforms moderate user-posted content to protect us from offensive, disturbing and sometimes criminal content. This process, however, is not always automatic. It often relies upon the efforts of individual workers to act as gatekeepers, keeping undesirable content at bay.

We are not long into 2019 and yet one thing already seems clear – the law concerning employment contract termination clauses will continue to be the focus of a great deal of litigation in Ontario. In just the past few months alone, new decisions from the Superior Court have helped to advance the law and provide further guidance to employers on proper drafting of termination clauses.

Tagg Industries v. Rieder serves as a useful reminder of the importance of proving (and communicating to employees) a termination for cause, as well as the high threshold that employers must meet in such circumstances.

The size of an employee’s salary is often seen as an indicator of importance within an organization. Thus, when women are paid less than their male counterparts for performing similar work, it suggests that their efforts are somehow of lesser value. In Ontario, we have a number of legal mechanisms that are designed to reduce gender-based wage disparity, however, it remains a reality in far too many workplaces.

On January 2, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its first decision of 2019: Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al. While the new year is just getting started, this decision is likely to be one of the most significant from an employment law perspective. Its implications are far-reaching and raise novel compliance challenges for Ontario employers that contract to resolve workplace disputes by way of private arbitration.

When an employee is fired and not given sufficient notice, a common point of dispute becomes how to properly calculate the lost value of non-monetary benefits. Wages, by contrast, are a relatively simple affair. If a court orders the employee ought to have received an additional three (3) months’ notice, the parties need only calculate the value of three months’ wages and any resulting interest for the delay in payment.

In a previous blog entry, we wrote about the laws surrounding secret recordings in the workplace. As we cautioned: “[b]efore creating such recordings, be sure to think carefully about the necessity of the action and check whether any workplace policies may be engaged.”

Manchester may be best known for its premiership football teams and spawning the likes of Oasis and The Smiths, however, the City was in the headlines last month for something quite different: its Student Union (“MUSU”) voted to replace clapping at all of its events with “jazz hands” (i.e. the practice of waving open hands in the air).