In the recent decision of Covenoho v. Pendylum Ltd., 2017 ONCA 284, the Ontario Court of Appeal put an end to any debate about the enforceability of termination provisions in employment agreements that may violate minimum employment standards legislation in the future. The takeaway for employers from the case is as simple as it is noteworthy: a termination provision that breaches minimum employment standards legislation in the future – even if compliant at the time of the employee’s termination from employment – is void and therefore will not be enforced. Continue Reading Into the Void: Potential Future Violations of ESA Sufficient to Set Aside Employment Contract
“‘Then you should say what you mean,’ the March Hare went on. ‘I do,’ Alice hastily replied; ‘at least ‒ at least I mean what I say ‒ that’s the same thing, you know.’ ‘Not the same thing a bit!’ said the Mad Hatter.”
– Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
There is no “madness” in saying what you mean; in the realm of contracts ‒ especially employment contracts ‒ the madness is in not doing so, especially if not “saying what you mean” leaves contractual intention to implication or “understanding”.
A case in point. Earlier this month, the Ontario Court of Appeal accepted the argument of my colleague Jordan Kirkness, against the contention that terms can be “implied” due ‒ in this instance ‒ to “industry custom”: Hampton Securities Limited v. Tassone, 2017 ONCA 69. Continue Reading Of Alice, Patton and Dr. Seuss: Latest on Implied Terms in Contract
Recently Canadian singer Alanis Morissette became the latest well-publicized victim of fraud at the hands of one she employed and trusted: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36316327. She joins a long list of celebrities who have suffered fraud at the hands of those employed to trust, amongst them the Beatles, Beyoncé, David Bowie, Billy Joel, Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Elvis, the Rolling Stones. Continue Reading Jagged Little Pill: What “You Oughta Know” Regarding Agency Fraud
The untimely passing of George Michael and the corresponding ubiquitous airplay of his hit “Faith” may seem a curious segway to legal developments, but we don’t like our readers getting unexpectedly ‘whammed’ by subtle yet powerful trending in the law. Continue Reading Supreme Court of Canada Tells Employers ‘You Gotta Have Faith’
To ring in the New Year, we highlight the ten most significant developments in Canadian labour and employment law in 2016: Continue Reading Top 10 Canadian Labour & Employment Law Developments of 2016
On July 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that most federally-regulated, non-union employees can only be dismissed for “just cause” after 12 consecutive months of service (Wilson v. Atomic Energy, 2016 SCC 29). As a result of this decision, it is now clear that employees who are regulated under Part III of the Canada Labour Code cannot, following their first year of employment, simply be provided with termination notice or pay in lieu, absent a compelling reason for terminating the employment relationship. Continue Reading Supreme Court of Canada: A Dismissal “Without Cause” is an “Unjust Dismissal” (Part III of the Canada Labour Code)
A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) has provided clarity in the debate over the validity of termination clauses in employment contracts that are silent on continuation of benefits through the statutory notice period. Continue Reading The Pendulum Swings Back: The Court of Appeal Rules Termination Clause Valid Despite Silence on Benefits Continuation
In the recent decision in Howard v. Benson Group Inc., 2016 ONCA 256, the Ontario Court of Appeal provides straightforward but important lessons for employers who make use of fixed term employment contracts: Continue Reading Fixed Term Employment Contracts – Important Lessons from the Ontario Court of Appeal
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently confirmed not only that dependent contractors are entitled to reasonable notice of termination, but that 26 months can be an appropriate notice period for long-service dependent contractors.
In this series, we have explored the costs and benefits of incorporating arbitration clauses into employment agreements, the enforceability of such clauses, and issues to consider when drafting. Let’s say you resolve a dispute under an arbitration agreement and the arbitrator has granted an award. Now what?
In this post, we discuss the options for enforcing and challenging an arbitral award in Canadian courts. While we focus on enforcement and challenge of awards in Ontario, similar procedures and provisions apply throughout the country. Continue Reading To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate: Alternatives to Litigation in the Employment Context (Part 4)