Resources
-
The Consequences of an “Innocent” Covering E-mail
July 2017
New technology has undoubtedly impacted the employment relationship. The relationship is changing and, perhaps more importantly, the way in which the relationship is conducted is changing. While many employers would not think twice about the impact of a covering e-mail to an offer letter, the recent decision in Ballim v. Bausch & Lomb Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 6307 confirms that an e-mail which attaches an agreement or offer can be used to determine the intention of the parties.
Read More +
-
B.C. Supreme Court Decision Reminds Employers that Probationary Period is Not Carte Blanche to Dismiss Employee with No Strings Attached
July 2017
In Ly v. British Columbia, 2017 BCSC No. 43, the plaintiff, Phuc Ly, was hired as a manager for the employer. His employment was terminated after approximately 2.5 months. The employer did not provide any notice or pay in lieu of notice in reliance on a probationary clause in Mr. Ly’s offer of employment which read, in its entirety, that “[e]mployees are required to serve an initial probationary period of six (6) months for new positions”.
Read More +
-
Significant Changes to Workplace Legislation Expected in Alberta
June 2017
On May 24, 2017, the Alberta Legislature introduced Bill 17: Fair and Family–friendly Workplaces Act. The bill is part of the Government of Alberta’s effort to ensure that Albertans have “the same rights and protections enjoyed by other Canadians, and have fair and family-friendly workplace laws that support a strong economy and help businesses stay competitive.”
Read More +
-
Ontario’s Proposed Legislative Changes are About to Make Life a lot More Interesting for Employers
June 2017
Alberta is not the only province that is making significant changes to workplace legislation. Ontario has jumped on the bandwagon with legislation introduced at the end of May that impacts employers with both unionized and non-unionized workforces. These changes were made in response to a government-commissioned report that made 173 recommendations addressing precarious work.
Read More +
-
A Haphazard Sexual Harassment Investigation – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
May 2017
Melissa Doyle, a well-educated woman who had worked with Zochem Inc. for nine years, supervised an all-male group of refinery workers. The workplace culture was dominated by the Maintenance Supervisor’s “male locker room” mentality. On his office walls were pictures of scantily clad women. He expected Ms. Doyle to act like “one of the boys”, by sharing details of her dating life, laughing at his lewd jokes and engaging in otherwise unwelcome sexual banter.
Read More +
-
Alberta Court of Appeal Overturns Contentious Bonus Award Because Employee Was Not Actively Employed On Vesting Date
May 2017
In Styles v. Alberta Investment Management Corporation, 2017 ABCA 1, the Alberta Court of Appeal (the “Court”) reversed a lower court decision that had awarded a dismissed employee, David Styles, almost $500,000 for an unpaid incentive bonus in spite of the fact he was disentitled to any bonus pursuant to the terms of his written employment contract.
Read More +
-
Can an Employer’s Unfavourable Reference Ground a Claim for Defamation?
May 2017
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently found an employee’s defamation claim against his previous employer for an unfavourable reference could not succeed, because the reference was justified and fell “within the range of qualified privilege”.
Read More +
-
Nobody Cares About Your (Unilateral) Life Plans: Lessons From the Great White North
April 2017
A recent decision of the Yukon Court of Appeal provides some valuable commentary about the role (or lack thereof) played by one’s personal plans in determining the appropriate length of notice for a dismissed employee.
Read More +
-
In the Right Context, “Revelation of Character”, Including After-Acquired Cause Dating Back Years, Can Warrant Summary Dismissal
April 2017
In Smith v. Pacific Coast Terminals Co., 2016 BCSC 1876, an employee was considered by his employer to have misled it regarding the necessary permits for a construction project. Although the employer viewed the misconduct to be serious, it decided to dismiss the employee without cause and offer him a severance package.
Read More +
' '