Articles 2020

In a decision that has many employers reconsidering the manner in which they implement their duty to accommodate, the Divisional Court recently confirmed the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal’s decision in Fair v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.

In a recent Ontario Court decision an employee's chronic inability to get along with his co-workers, and his failure to apologize for making rude and unprofessional comments to co-workers constituted wilful disobedience, gross insubordination and justified his termination for cause.

The Court reminds us that determining appropriate notice periods is ‘an art and not a science’.

Does an employer's enforcement of a non-competition clause effect reasonable notice?

Assistance from the Ontario Human Rights Commission in dealing with accommodation of mental health issues in the workplace.

Court considers impact of workplace investigation in termination action

According to the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Paquette c. Quadraspec Inc., an Ontario employer’s payroll outside of the province is now to be accounted for when determining if they are obligated to pay statutory severance pursuant to Section 64 of Ontario’s Employment Standards Act. To date, the prevailing view of the Court has been that only a company’s Ontario payroll would be accounted for in determining if the statutory payroll threshold had been met.

In McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, the SCC examined whether an equity partner at a large law firm qualified as an employee for the purposes of the British Columbia Human Rights Code. While the SCC found that John McCormick was not an employee on the individual facts of this case, importantly, the Court left the door open for other partners, who exercised less control and were more dependent on the firm to be classified as employees in the future.