Bullying and harassment in the school system, in the workplace and online has been receiving significant attention in the media over the past few years, but unfortunately, what constitutes bullying or harassment is generally not well understood.
In the recent decision of Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2013 HRTO 440, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) awarded an extensive remedy to an employee (the “Employee”), including 9 years of lost wages, after finding that her employer (the “Employer”) had discriminated against her by failing to accommodate the Employee’s disability-related needs and subsequently terminating her employment.
In Chevalier v. Active Tire & Auto Centre Inc., 2012 ONSC 4309, aff’d 2013 ONCA 548, the parties agreed that Mr. Chevalier was constructively dismissed. The issue at dispute was whether the Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.
Managing personal vs. business usage of employer-issued communication devices is a common issue facing employers in today’s workplace. An extensive amount of information is exchanged every day, some of which constitutes an employee’s “personal information.” An employer attempting to oversee or monitor the employee’s personal usage of these devices, must ensure they do so in accordance with privacy legislation.
The British Columbia Supreme Court expressed disapproval of a claim for constructive dismissal on the basis of negative treatment where the plaintiff was an active participant in the creation of the toxic work environment. In Danielisz v. Hercules Forwarding Inc., 2012 BCSC 155, a former employee claimed that she was unfairly picked on and ostracized by other staff. She alleged that this caused her to require a medical leave due to stress, and led to her constructive dismissal.
In the recent decision of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited v Wilson, 2013 FC 733 [AECL], the Federal Court held that Canada Labour Code does not prohibit employer from terminating employees without cause.
In Piron v Dominion Masonry Ltd., 2013 BCCA 184, the plaintiff, Mr. Piron, had worked for the defendant, Dominion Masonry Ltd. (Dominion), for 19 years before his employment ended in August 2011. Piron started with Dominion as a mason, but quickly became a foreman who supervised the masons working on particular projects.
n Payette v. Guay Inc. 2013 SCC 45, the Supreme Court of Canada distinguished between the interpretation of a restrictive covenant negotiated in the sale of a business and one found in an employment contract. In the commercial context, a restrictive covenant is lawful unless it can be established by the employee/vendor that its scope is unreasonable. In contrast, a restrictive covenant in an employment contract is presumed to be unenforceable unless the employer can establish it is reasonable in the circumstances.
The Federal Court of Appeal has recently clarified the test to be applied in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, in 1392644 Ontario Inc. (Connor Homes) v. Canada (National Revenue), 2013 FCA 85 (CanLII).
Issues arise on every construction, so what separates the projects that complete successfully from those mired in litigation? Whether it is early intervention to nip catastrophe in the bud or proactive management before problems arise, there are some easy guidelines to minimize risk. Click here for more.