An employee in Ontario was awarded bonus payments for the applicable reasonable notice period following a without cause termination despite the bonus plan’s express terms that personal and company objectives must be met and the employee must be actively employed.
In Passamaquoddy Lodge v CUPE Local 1763 2016 NBQB 056 the Court of Queen’s Bench upheld an original arbitration decision condemning an employer for suspending an employee pending the outcome of a psychiatric evaluation.
A recent labour arbitration decision out of Ontario considers an employer’s obligation to protect its employees from harassment via an employer’s presence on social media.
In May of 2016, in Fair v Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2012 HRTO 350, an Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a Human Rights Tribunal with important implications for employers in relation to the duty to accommodate and the jeopardy of reinstatement.
In the context of a unionized work environment, it is generally the case that when an employee is found to be terminated without cause, the employee is ordered to be reinstated.
A new decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal shows the potential downside of fixed term employment contracts for employers and the importance of proper drafting.
There continues to be a seemingly never-ending stream of cases which confirm the perils of assuming that an employer’s liability for reasonable notice of termination will be capped at one month per year of employment.
Employee salaries and benefits can be some of the greatest costs borne by a business. As a result, when a company faces financial hardship, they will often terminate positions to reduce their costs.
In the absence of an employment agreement that expressly sets out a notice period upon termination, employees who are terminated without just cause are entitled to a notice period or pay in lieu of notice from their employers in accordance with the common law.
In a recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2015 ABCA 225, it was held that the termination of an employee who tested positive for cocaine in a post-incident drug test was not discriminatory.