2,191 results found

On Friday December 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in IBM Canada Limited v. Waterman, relating to whether damages awarded to an employee for wrongful dismissal should be reduced if the employee receives pension benefits as a result of the dismissal.

Employers are increasingly aware of their obligations to investigate workplace sexual harassment and provide a workplace free of workplace sexual harassment.

Yes, an employee can recover for damage to his reputation caused by the manner of termination of his employment. This is not a surprising outcome based on the principles established by the Wallace decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The decision to terminate an employee for just cause can place an employer in a delicate balancing act.

Slapping a woman's buttocks in the workplace without remorse can be just cause for termination, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently held, but, oddly, in this case the dismissed employee was awarded

The Ontario government has updated its regulations under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 ("ESA")

After a winding ride through our court system the case of Pate v. Galway-Cavendish has most recently received attention from our Court of Appeal which has awarded $450,000.00 for punitive damages to the dismissed employee’s estate.

When an employee needs to access long term disability benefits ("LTD"), employers should be mindful of the various pitfalls that can arise in trying to successfully manage innocent absenteeism.

In Roe v. BC Ferry Services, the BC Court of Appeal recently clarified the right contextual approach for employers to take when determining whether an employee’s misconduct is serious enough to constitute just cause for dismissal.

Pursuant to Ontario's Limitations Act, the limitation period, or time limit, for bringing a wrongful dismissal action in Ontario is two years.

Plenty has been written about legal obligations and mistaken beliefs when it comes to employees being fired.

Recently, the HRTO held that an employer’s duty to accommodate does not require an employer to permit its store manager to tell customers to go away and come back later when another person could assist them with their purchases.

Recent case law in Ontario indicates that it is just not enough for an employee to declare that he or she will resign if certain circumstances eventuate.

With the proliferation of remote work, employers are increasingly encountering situations where employees have taken on a distracting "side hustle" – or even a second full-time job.

Employees and employers rely upon each other to get a job done. Sometimes when the two parties do not see eye to eye on an issue, that relationship can be strained.

As businesses across the country were forced to shut their doors in the name of public health, many employers grappled and continue to grapple with implications of putting ...

A recent Ontario arbitration decision, Garda Security Screening Inc. v. IAM, District 140 (Shoker Grievance), provides employers with a useful authority when faced with addressing breaches...