Articles 2019

The Hryniak decision called for a culture shift, and this shift has been strongly felt by employment lawyers, specifically with a recent increase in the scope of what summary judgment motions have been resolved, or partially resolved, by the Courts.

In Oudin v. Centre Francophone de Toronto, plaintiffs were reminded that the interpretation of employment contracts is not merely an exercise in searching for a reason to set aside a termination provision. The recent decision in Cook v. Hatch Ltd. suggests courts may be skeptical of arguments that aim to do just that.

A recent arbitral decision has endorsed an alternative framework for arbitrators considering misconduct that is connected to a disability. Previously, the consensus in Ontario was that arbitrators ought to simultaneously apply a disciplinary or just cause analysis to the culpable aspects of the misconduct and a human rights analysis to the non-culpable aspect. This single stage inquiry has now been supplanted in favour of a two-stage analysis.

The courts view just cause for dismissal as the capital punishment of employment law. Consequently, employers face a significant burden when trying to prove just cause at law. Arguing just cause for dismissal may be difficult; however, it is not impossible, especially in circumstances involving dishonesty or lack of trust. This article summarizes two recent decisions where employers were found to be justified in terminating employees with just cause based on forgery.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (“Hryniak”), summary judgment has become one of the primary tools used by employment lawyers. Recent Ontario court decisions have expanded upon Hryniak and now provide a framework for the circumstances in which to seek summary judgment in the context of a wrongful dismissal. These decisions, however, also serve as a reminder of the limitation of summary judgment and how parties should properly engage with it.

From time to time an employment law decision comes along that resonates beyond the specialized legal blogs and into the mainstream news. Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is one of those cases.

With the Federal Government's plan to remove marijuana consumption and incidental possession from the Criminal Code employers must consider how to manage the use of marijuana in the workplace.

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.