Articles 2024

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.

The recent unanimous decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Attorney General of Canada v. Johnstone, makes it clear that family status within the Canadian Human Rights Act, includes parental childcare obligations, which requires accommodation by employers. This decision serves to illustrate the need for flexible and inclusive work environments for employees with restrictive childcare obligations.

The Ontario Court of Appeal clarifies when time begins to run for an anticipatory breach of contract. In situations where a party clearly refuses the other’s expressed anticipated breach and instead presses for the specific performance of the agreement, the limitation clock starts to run from the time of the actual failure to perform and not from the notice of breach.

In a recent decision, the Ontario Labour Relations Board appears to have changed its previous approach to allegations that a worker has been terminated for making a complaint of workplace harassment. While the Board had previously found that it likely did not have the authority to deal with such complaints, the Board now appears to accept that this type of allegation engages the anti-reprisal provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.