News & Blog
Featured News
Employment - On the Docket
-
An invalid termination clause is a former employee’s golden ticket for employment litigation, increasing a notice period from the statutory minimum to what is reasonable at common law. The monetary difference can be substantial. Given the financial implications, there is a large and growing body of case law on when a termination clause will be deemed unenforceable.
Rule 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides a set of simplified rules for use in smaller and, in theory, less complicated matters. However, exactly how those rules apply in certain contexts is not always apparent. In Singh v Concept Plastics Limited, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently addressed the challenges of summary judgment motions in the context of the simplified rules.
A frequently litigated issue in Canadian class actions is the extent to which parties can agree in advance to opt out of class actions in favour of private arbitration. In the context of consumer protection claims, provincial legislatures have generally eliminated the ability of defendants to defeat class actions through arbitrations by declaring clauses requiring the parties to submit such disputes to private arbitrations to be void. However, it has remained an open question as to whether and when courts would enforce arbitration clauses in other contexts, where the effect of such enforcement would be to defeat a proposed class proceeding.
Canadian Courts have been faced in recent years with a number of class actions in which employees allege that their employer improperly misclassified them as ineligible for overtime pay. The Ontario Court of Appeal's recent decision in Brown v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce makes it more difficult for such claims to proceed as class actions.
Employers sometimes rely on severability clauses—which provide that any clauses that are found to be illegal or unenforceable are severed from the agreement and that the agreement otherwise remains in effect—to hedge against the risk that clauses in employment contracts could be found to run afoul of the Employment Standards Act and be unenforceable as a whole. However, in its recent decision in North v Metaswitch Networks Corporation, the Court of Appeal for Ontario signalled that these clauses have limited effect when parties include terms in agreements that contract out of minimum employment standards.
In most cases, an employee who resigns voluntarily from employment is not legally entitled to damages. However, the line between resignation and constructive dismissal has become increasingly blurred and is a common issue of contention in employment litigation. In the recent case of Persaud v Telus Corporation, the Ontario Court of Appeal provides useful guidance regarding the effect of conduct in determining whether a resignation is actually a constructive dismissal.
An “active employment” clause in a bonus plan is not sufficient to extinguish an employee’s right to damages for lost bonuses in a wrongful dismissal action. This principle was affirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the recent decision of Paquette v TeraGo Networks Inc.
It is well established that an employee who has been dismissed from his or her position has a duty to mitigate their damages by seeking reemployment. The central question is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have accepted the offer of employment.
In Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10, the Supreme Court clarified and reformulated the law on constructive dismissal...
Justice Diamond’s decision in Singer v Nordstrong Equipment Limited provides valuable insight with respect to a terminated employee’s entitlement to a bonus payment during the reasonable notice period.
