Equity compensation is one of the fastest growing categories of employee pay. More and more Canadian workers are seeing some form of employer-issued equity (via stock options, restricted share units, employee purchase plans, etc.) offered as part of incentive compensation packages. However, little attention tends to be given to the fine print that accompanies equity pay.

Generally speaking, a dismissed employee has an obligation to take reasonable steps to find, and accept, new comparable employment. Whether it is reasonable to accept new employment will always be a contextual assessment taking into consideration: whether the work is within the individual’s skillset; whether the role is at a similar level of seniority (i.e., Director, Vice-President etc.); whether the compensation is approximately the same; and whether the job is within a reasonable distance from where the individual lives. On this last point, it is generally acknowledged by the courts that it is not reasonable to expect an individual to move cities to accept a new job.

Vey Willetts lawyer Andrew Vey recently spoke with The Lawyer’s Daily for an article entitled “Appellate ruling confirms employers must lead evidence when disputing mitigation efforts: lawyers.“

The duty to accommodate disability in the workplace has both procedural and substantive aspects. It is not enough for an employer to merely arrive at the right result; the process in getting there is equally important.

It is quite common for employers to offer a bonus or incentive payment as part of a worker’s compensation. Bonuses serve a useful dual function – incentivizing individuals to perform their duties well and then rewarding achievement of the same.

Most employment contracts operate for an indefinite period. Lesser seen are fixed term agreements. The latter are most often used in the context of a sale of business and in the not-for-profit sector (where funding is frequently tied to time-limited grants). Regardless of their underlying motivation, fixed term contracts come with significant risks for employers.

Termination clauses are found in most written employment contracts. They typically set out a fixed formula to govern severance entitlements upon dismissal.

By December 1, 2022, the Canada Labour Code will require all federally regulated employers, regardless of size, to provide their employees with up to ten (10) paid days of annual medical leave.

Vey Willetts lawyer Andrew Vey was recently interviewed by Canadian HR Reporter concerning the expiry of deemed Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (“IDEL”). In an article entitled “Will end of deemed IDEL lead to a rise in constructive dismissal claims?”, Vey walked through the practical implications of this legal development for both employers and employees.

Generally speaking, Ontario employees are entitled to receive reasonable notice of their dismissal from employment (subject to situations where the parties have agreed in writing an alternate lawful entitlement in this regard).

Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (“IDEL”) is among the most controversial employment law changes made by the Ontario government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. By placing employees on a “deemed” IDEL, employers could essentially skirt the ordinary time limits for temporary layoffs in Ontario (which are typically capped at 13 weeks, subject to certain exceptions). In extreme cases, deemed IDEL has resulted in employees being left without work, and regular pay, for a staggering period of two and a half years.

The pandemic impacted heavily on the working lives of many: some lost their jobs, otherwise endured prolonged lay-offs, and many found themselves working from home. With the pandemic waning and (hopefully) at, or close to, an end, employers are considering how best to structure their workplaces moving forward. This presents a unique opportunity - to learn from mistakes, create efficiencies, improve culture and attract talent.

Proper classification of workers is a challenging task but one important to get right from the start. Misclassification can have serious consequences, such as exposing an organization to orders for unpaid wages and incurring fines for outstanding CPP and EI contributions.

Vey Willetts lawyer Paul Willetts was quoted in the May 3, 2022 edition of Canadian HR Reporter in an article entitled "Fired for cause, worker still gets termination pay".

In the lead-up to the June 2nd provincial election, the Progressive Conservative Party under Premier Ford has introduced yet another set of changes to Ontario employment law. This marks the second major update to the province’s workplace regulations in a 12-month period. We reported on the prior round of changes (which became law in November 2021) here.

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its ruling in Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited. This decision deals primarily with the plaintiff’s appeal of the trial ruling that his former employer had cause to terminate his employment, and he thus had no severance entitlement.

Over the course of the pandemic, many employers (particularly those in retail, hospitality and tourism) experienced a significant downturn in business. As a result, some made the difficult decision to either lay-off or dismiss staff. A recent court decision from British Columbia considers whether an employer’s dramatic loss of revenue (which informed the decision to end employment) should properly be considered a “frustration of employment.”

Over the past few months, the provincial government has introduced several legislative changes that impact upon the workplace and require employers to meet new requirements.