Listen to this post

Our regular readers will recall a previous blog about the case involving Jan Wong, a former Globe and Mail columnist, who violated the confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement that was intended to finally resolve her unjust dismissal grievance.  Wong disclosed information about the settlement in her published book, Out of the Blue.  The arbitrator found that Wong’s disclosure breached a specific provision of the settlement agreement, and ordered her to repay $209,912 to her former employer.

In an attempt to reverse the arbitrator’s decision, Wong applied to Divisional Court for judicial review.  To put it mildly, she did not succeed.  Moreover, she was ordered to pay $30,000 in legal costs to her former employer and union. Continue Reading Settlement Agreement Confidentiality Strongly Enforced: Former Globe and Mail Columnist Who Was Ordered to Repay $209,912 Now Required to Pay $30,000 in Legal Costs

Listen to this post

Since 2007 there have been five significant overtime class action cases in Canada.  Two of these cases have been labelled “off-the-clock” cases — cases in which employees allege they were expected to work overtime without being paid for it.  Both off-the-clock class actions were eventually certified.  One of those cases has now settled.

The remaining three overtime class actions are “misclassification” cases in which employees allege that their employer misclassified them as exempt from statutory overtime entitlements.  Courts have been more reluctant to certify the misclassification cases because, in a majority of those cases, the proposed plaintiff class has not been sufficiently similar to justify a class action proceeding.

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Brown v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce confirms the prevailing view that employers are most vulnerable to issues that arise when their employees’ hours are not properly monitored, recorded, enforced or compensated.  Employers continue to be liable to individual employees for misclassifying them as “overtime exempt”, but it is less likely that such misclassifications will give rise to the added liability that is associated with a class action. Continue Reading Ontario Court of Appeal Refuses to Certify Another “Misclassification” Overtime Class Action

Listen to this post

On July 16, 2014, the Ontario Government introduced  Bill 18, Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014.  The Bill proposes changes that would (among other things) remove existing limits on unpaid wage claims, make temporary help agencies and their clients jointly liable for unpaid wages, and impose automatic adjustments to minimum wage based on the Consumer Price Index. Continue Reading Six Changes to Ontario Employment Legislation Proposed

Listen to this post

On July 1, 2014, key components of Canada’s “anti-spam legislation” came into force, but the full impact is still uncertain, particularly with respect to labour relations communications.  Our colleague, William Watson, has posted an interesting article on this in his blog, The Legal Playing Field.  Click here to read.

Listen to this post

In Evans v Bank of Nova Scotia, an employee of the Bank of Nova Scotia (“Bank”), Richard Wilson, provided highly confidential information about the Bank’s customers to his girlfriend, who disseminated the information to third parties for fraudulent purposes.  On June 6, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a class action brought on behalf of the affected customers, alleging that they were victims of identity theft and fraud as a result of the intrusion upon seclusion.

This is the province’s first-ever class action involving the new tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”, which allows individuals to advance a civil claim for damages against an intruder who intentionally invades their privacy, without legal justification, in a manner that is highly offensive to the reasonable person. Continue Reading “Intrusion Upon Seclusion” Class Action Certified in Ontario

Listen to this post

In Attorney General of Canada v Johnstone, 2014 FCA 110, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) established a new test for determining whether an employer has discriminated against an employee on the basis of “family status” under the Canadian Human Rights Act (“CHRA”).

Continue Reading Federal Court of Appeal: Your Kid’s Hockey Tournament is Not Protected Under the Canadian Human Rights Act

Listen to this post

As of July 1, 2014, employers operating in Ontario must ensure their occupational health and safety programs satisfy new worker and supervisor training requirements.

Continue Reading Ontario Imposes New Mandatory Occupational Health and Safety Awareness Training Requirements

Listen to this post

The Ontario Legislature has proposed changes (Bills 159 and 146) to the statutory obligations of both temporary help agencies (“Agencies”) and their clients (“Employers”).  These changes would increase protection for temporary employees, including an “agency cut maximum” and a cap on the percentage of temporary employees that can be used by an Employer.  In particular:

  • Agencies would be required to pay their temporary employees at least 80% of the amount they charge clients for services performed by a given temporary employee.
  • Employers would have to ensure that the total hours worked by temporary employees in a work week do not exceed 25% of the total hours worked by all employees.

Continue Reading Ontario Proposes Changes to Employment Standards for Temporary Help Agency Employees

Listen to this post

In Bernard v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 13, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that employee privacy rights do not override a union’s right to receive the information that it requires to fulfill its representational duties.  Accordingly, employers may be required to disclose information that will allow a certified union to contact members of its bargaining unit at home, and failure to do so may constitute an unfair labour practice.

Continue Reading Privacy in the Labour Relations Context: Union Entitled to Contact Employee at Home

Listen to this post

A team of Baker & McKenzie lawyers successfully argued for the summary dismissal of a human rights application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The applicant in this case alleged discrimination on the basis of disability under s. 11 of the Ontario Human Rights Code (“Code”).

Continue Reading Successful Dismissal of a Human Rights Application in the Academic Context by Baker & McKenzie