In a recent decision, Wilds v. 1959612 Ontario Inc., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded punitive damages against an employer for its conduct at, and following, the time of termination. In so doing, the court provided a helpful reminder for employers to meet their lawful obligations when ending the employment relationship or risk exposure to additional liability.

Workplace discrimination can take many forms and may include situations where an employee is the target of unintentional discriminatory behaviour informed by unconscious bias. Unconscious bias refers to social stereotypes about groups of people that individuals form outside of their own conscious awareness.

While workplace investigations can play an important role in addressing discrimination, they also have the inadvertent potential to further discriminatory conduct through unconscious bias. 

When an employee termination is conducted, most employers focus on determining contractual severance entitlements and ensuring compliance with statutory requirements. In so doing, their aim is to limit any potential claims for wrongful dismissal. By contrast, less thought tends to be given to return of property. This is not an unreasonable state of affairs, as in most cases, return of property (whether it be employer-owned assets or employee personal effects) occurs with little fuss. But what happens when employers encounter intransigent former employees who refuse to return their property?

Earlier this month, Vey Willetts LLP was successful at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) in securing an award of almost $40,000 against a corporate respondent (and its owner) for firing a pregnant employee after 8 days of employment.

Sometimes, during the hiring process, an employer may opt to send an initial job offer and then, once accepted, follow up with a more detailed set of terms. This procedure, while seemingly innocuous, can prove to be high risk, carrying with it the potential for significant and unintended liability. An employer may find itself unable to rely on the ‘follow-up’ set of terms and be stuck with the deal set out in its initial job offer.

For any Ontario employment agreement to be enforceable at law, it must have three components: 1) an offer; 2) acceptance of the offer; and 3) consideration.

In Ontario, where a dispute between an employer and an employee (or former employee) cannot be resolved informally – which is usually a more expedient and practical option - recourse to the courts is generally available.

The Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) requires provincially-regulated employers to have in place (and review annually) a written policy addressing workplace harassment. The OHSA defines ‘workplace harassment’ as "engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome."

We are not yet at the halfway point of 2024. Despite this, both Queen’s Park and Parliament Hill have already been quite busy creating new rules that will apply to employers with operations in Ontario. In this article, we highlight a few of the major changes announced in the Working for Workers Five Act, 2024 and the

2024 Federal Budget and summarize how these may impact your organization.

The purpose of severance is to bridge the gap while a person is unemployed and looking for a new job. As we often tell clients, severance is not intended to provide a windfall. When a person is dismissed from a job, they have an obligation to make reasonable efforts to offset the losses stemming from their dismissal (referred to as the “duty to mitigate”). In the right circumstances, this may include accepting an alternate offer of employment with the same employer or pursuing a reasonable opportunity that has been brought to their attention.

In a short decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has recently clarified an important question regarding fixed-term employment contracts. Namely, whether a fixed-term itself can be considered a type of termination clause.

“Time theft” describes situations where an employee is paid for time they knowingly misrepresent as having been worked. Time theft may take many different forms. It could include longer-than-scheduled breaks, misrepresenting or altering records (such as timecards), or completing personal matters on paid company time. It received renewed attention during the pandemic as more employees worked remotely.

2024 got off to a bang in the world of employment law. In a recent trial level decision, an Ontario judge has found yet another termination clause illegal and unenforceable. In so doing, the court accepted an entirely novel argument for why termination provisions may be read as impermissibly contracting out of the mandatory requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000

Much of employment law centres on wrongful dismissal litigation. Wrongful dismissal arises when an employer has terminated the employment relationship and failed to provide sufficient advance notice or pay-in-lieu to the affected employee. Less well known is the corollary of wrongful dismissal: wrongful resignation. Just as employers are obligated to give notice prior to terminating the employment relationship, so too are workers.

Hiring processes can be competitive – particularly in a slow market where eligible candidates may outnumber available opportunities. While applicants may look to present their experience or qualifications in the most favourable light (whether on a CV or in the course of an interview), there is a significant difference between positive spin and blatant dishonesty.

Among the changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic was an increased normalization of virtual meetings.

I can count on one hand the number of Zoom or Teams meetings I attended before March 2020. In 2023, by contrast, virtual meetings are an almost everyday occurrence.

On November 14, 2023, the Ontario provincial government tabled

Bill 149

It is not uncommon for an individual to work a second job – or to take on a “side hustle” – to supplement their income. Most employers will tolerate such activities where they are non-competitive in nature, carried on outside of working hours, and do not interfere with the individual’s performance of their duties.