Articles

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decisions in Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc. and Lin v. Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan have made it much easier to argue that employees are entitled to compensation for bonuses during the notice period, regardless of what may be contained in an employment contract or bonus plan.

Common law duty of good faith (aka Bhasin) wreaking havoc on interpretation of terms in employment contracts.

Since the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” in the landmark decision Jones v. Tsige, a spotlight has been turned on the issue of unauthorized employee snooping into clients’ personal records for purposes of their own. Further, with the recent recognition of novel privacy torts by both the Federal Court of Canada and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, employers could face new risks when employees decide to push private matters into public view.

A summary of the recommendations proposed in the Supporting a Strong and Sustainable Ontario College of Trades Report.

A summary of workplace violence and harassment prevention developments and what is in store in 2016.

On October 21, 2015 close to 50 practitioners from the labour and employment law bar and construction law bar who practice in the area of construction labour relations gathered for the Ontario Bar Association’s program “What You Need to Know About the 2016 Construction Industry Open Period.”

This article examines the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent Judgment in Holland v. Hostopia.com Inc., and focuses on the Court’s analysis of whether an employment contract can be modified by an employer after an employee has already commenced work without fresh consideration for the modification.

Courts often distinguish between ex gratia payments and those that are integral components of an employee’s compensation when awarding damages during the period of reasonable notice for bonuses that are otherwise characterized as “discretionary”. While this distinction has had a long pedigree, a recent decision of the Superior Court of Justice in Fraser v. Canerector Inc. presents a formidable challenge to the underlying rationale for the distinction.