Photo of Ryan Carroll

Ryan Carroll

Subscribe to Ryan Carroll's Posts
Contact:Read more about Ryan Carroll

Key Takeaways

Remote work arrangements may become binding terms of employment when they are applied consistently and relied on by employees. Changes to work location can therefore give rise to a constructive dismissal claim, similar to what can occur when an employer changes compensation or duties. While the outcome in any given case will depend on the specific facts, employers should assess whether flexibility has become part of the employment agreement and, if so, implement changes through agreement or reasonable notice rather than unilaterally to correct this situation.

In Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199, the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered when a return‑to‑office requirement may cross the line into constructive dismissal. The decision underscores a familiar point for employers: changes to working conditions are often permissible, but greater care is required where those conditions have become established terms of the employment relationship.

Continue Reading From Flexibility to Employer Obligation: Remote Work and Constructive Dismissal

From ergonomic complaints to fatalities, workplaces inevitably face accidents and other safety incidents. Employers rely on effective investigations to respond to these incidents. Occupational health and safety legislation often also requires employers to investigate, either explicitly or implicitly, as part of their legal obligation to take all reasonable steps to protect workers from harm.

Even when the law does not specifically require an investigation, employers have many good reasons to conduct one. An investigation often helps employers save time and resources, improve health and safety systems, prevent similar future incidents, enhance workplace morale, and ultimately improve work quality and productivity.

However, employers should conduct an effective investigation that fits the circumstances. Most employer investigations we see do not meet that standard.

Below are the most common mistakes we see employers across Canada make.

Choosing Not to Investigate at All

Many employers are reluctant to spend time and resources investigating an incident unless it is required by law. They may feel that an investigation is a waste of time and resources, or that they already know what caused the incident.

However, employers prevent costly repeat incidents when they identify and remedy root causes. When an employer fails to address the root cause, it misses an opportunity to improve safety systems, and workplace culture. That failure increases the risk that the same incident will occur again, potentially with more serious consequences. If the incident occurs again, the consequences can far outweigh the cost of one effective investigation.

Continue Reading Common Pitfalls When Performing Occupational Health and Safety Workplace Incident Investigations

Join us for our 2026 Labour & Employment Webinar on February 4, where we’ll unpack the most significant developments shaping workplace law in Canada. This year brings critical updates that every employer needs to understand, from evolving termination clauses and new protections for gig workers to navigating new employment standards laws and creative immigration strategies…

As we wrap up 2025 and look forward to 2026, here are 10 key developments Canadian employers should track:

1. Termination Clause Update

In Ontario, there continues to be judicial scrutiny of employment contract termination clauses, particularly the use of the phrase “at any time”.

The Dufault case maintains precedential value. Please see our post here for more discussion on the case here and for more discussion on the issues with the use of the phrase “at any time”.

However, the recently decided Ontario Superior Court decision, Li v. Wayfair Canada Inc., upheld a termination clause that limited the employee’s entitlements to Employment Standards Act, 2000 minimums. The termination provision in question included “at any time” language which the court determined does not automatically render a termination provision non-compliant with the ESA as long as the provision is compliant when read as a whole.

In Bertsch v. Datastealth Inc. the Court of Appeal provided support for employers when it upheld a trial level decision which indicates that termination provisions can be enforced if they are clear and unambiguous, compliant with employment standards law and exclude common law entitlements.

2. Regulation of Gig Workers

With the introduction of the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, Ontario joined British Columbia by introducing legislation regulating the gig economy. The Act provides several entitlements to employees in the gig economy including a right to minimum wage, amounts earned, and a recurring pay period and pay day. Beyond those entitlements, the Act also provides a right to information.

For more information about the requirements, please see our post here.

Continue Reading Looking Forward to 2026: Top 10 Canadian Labour & Employment Law Developments of 2025