Articles 2019

I often write and speak about winning at mediation (it’s not an oxymoron), and as a mediator, I remain convinced that most counsel can do a much better job with their advocacy at mediation (also not an oxymoron). One of my mantras has become “help me to help you”; since I will be your advocate in the other room, make it as easy as possible for me to understand and explain your case in a compelling manner when I am speaking with the other side. That is how you win at mediation.

This article considers whether alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation, meets the statutory requirement to conduct an investigation into allegations of workplace harassment under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. We conclude that alternative dispute resolution does not satisfy an employer’s duty to investigate, but we encourage employers to consider using mediation and other restorative techniques as part of their overall response to a complaint of workplace harassment.

In this article, we explore the various methods in employment law forums available to enforce a settlement, as well as understanding the test for when a settlement will be found to be binding in the event that a party changes its mind or attempts to resile.

While we generally refer to mediation as a confidential and without prejudice process, the truth is that there are three potential situations in which what happens at mediation can be referenced and relied upon. It is important that counsel are aware of these exceptions, and advisable that they ensure that mediations they participate in are governed by an agreement which rebuts them to the extent possible. My standard mediation agreement does so, but not all of them do.

In addition to the COVID-19 pandemic’s heavy influence on employment law, 2021 also saw the introduction of new law dealing with employees’ “right to disconnect” and the near-banning of non-competition clauses and agreements. Additionally, a series of prominent and influential decisions emerged from Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal, Superior Court and Court of Appeal relating largely to workplace culture issues. We discuss this and more in our look back at 2021, and what’s to come in 2022.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved, so too have workplace dynamics, rules, and consequences. The availability of COVID-19 vaccines has added a new layer of complexity for workplace parties to navigate. This article explores how workplace mandatory vaccination policies are being reviewed by courts, labour boards and tribunals.

This article discusses noteworthy labour law decisions of 2021. While the topic of mandatory vaccination policies has garnered significant attention from employers and lawmakers in the past year, there were several judicial developments independent of vaccination policies that employers and human resources practitioners should keep in mind.

Sometimes parties travel a great distance to bridge the gap in their positions, only to find that the final step toward settlement is the biggest hurdle of all. "Splitting the difference" is not usually a viable strategy, so don't simply engage in offers and counter-offers without proper forethought. Working strategically with your mediator and considering creative approaches such as a Mediator's Proposal, Final Offer Selection, or mediation-arbitration (med-arb) will help get the deal done.

In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court rejected a Plaintiff’s argument that the entire termination scheme in an employment agreement was unenforceable because the agreement contained a “just cause” provision. Relying on contract law principles, the Court distinguished Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc. and reminded employment lawyers that every case should be considered on its own facts.

In Morningstar v WSIAT, the Ontario Divisional Court partially quashed a WSIAT decision and held that constructive dismissal claims for chronic mental stress arising from workplace harassment are not statute-barred by the WSIA unless they are improper attempts to skirt the limitations of that Act. This article summarizes this recent decision and discusses the implications it may have for employers and employees in regards to these types of claims.