Articles

Conducting investigations has become a necessary reality of the workplace. When conducted properly, an investigation can be a valuable tool in assisting employers in making decisions and reducing liability.

Does pursuing self-employment constitute a reasonable effort at mitigation?

Does new consideration suffice to ensure that a court will enforce a new, mid-term termination clause?

This article highlights the dangers and undesired consequences that may arise when common law doctrines are parachuted into specialized areas of administrative law. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s recent application of the De Minimis doctrine has resulted in decisions that contradict established fundamental human rights principles.

On October 29, 2014, the Employment Standards Amendment Act (Leaves to Help Families), 2014 (“Bill 21”) came into force. Bill 21 amends the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 to provide for a number of new job-protected leaves.

In recent years, the lack of accountability and transparency of many public and private organizations has been forcefully brought to the forefront of public attention by the actions of Edward Snowden, Catherine Galliford and numerous others. The actions of these individuals have reignited the discussion over legislative protections for those who disclose the wrongdoings of their employers.

The Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014 (“Bill 18”), was carried after third reading on November 6, 2014. When enacted, the Bill will amend five statutes including the Employment Protections for Foreign Nationals Act (Live-in Caregivers and Others), 2009, the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

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.