header_iceberg.jpg

Posts tagged: employment lawyer Barrie

Employment Law Update: Mid-Year Report

By , June 26, 2018 3:34 pm

In this blog, as we enter the dog days of summer, I will review five current trends and developments in Ontario’s employment laws.

1.  A New Sheriff is in Town: The PC party has replaced the Liberal party as Ontario’s governing party

I anticipate this change in government will result in less government regulation of Ontario’s workplaces. During the election campaign, Doug Ford promised not to increase the minimum wage from $ 14.00 to $ 15.00 on January 1, 2019. I will let you know in a future blog whether he keeps this promise.

In the meantime, two laws the Liberal government introduced are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2018 and January 1, 2019.

One law changes the way public holiday is calculated. Bill 148 changed the way public holiday pay was calculated, however, effective July 1, 2018, public holiday pay will once again be calculated using the formula that applied prior to the coming into force of Bill 148. In other words, the employee’s public holiday pay for a given public holiday will be equal to the total amount of regular wages earned and vacation pay payable to the employee in the four work weeks before the work week in which the public holiday occurred, divided by 20.

The second law will require an employer to provide salary information to job applicants and prohibit employers from asking job applicants about their salary history. In particular, on April 26, 2018 the  Pay Transparency Act was passed. Unless Doug Ford repeals this law, on January 1, 2019 all employers will be prohibited from either directly/ indirectly asking candidates about past compensation, they will be required to post a compensation rate or range for all publicly advertised job postings, and they will be prohibited from reprising against employees who make inquiries about compensation practices.

Last year, the Liberal government announced it was hiring 175 employees to make sure Ontario employers are complying with the Employment Standards Act. Many of these people have now been hired, and trained and are conducting inspections of Ontario’s workplaces. The government has stated it intends to inspect 1 in 10 Ontario workplaces each year.

For more information on how we help employers comply with the Employment Standards Act, click here

2.Cannabis Use Will Be Legal On October 17, 2018

The federal government has announced that cannabis use will be legal on October 17, 2018. In the meantime, the Ontario government must decide how to regulate the sale of cannabis in Ontario. Employers need to decide whether or not to introduce or amend a drug and alcohol use policy. An employee who is impaired at work can be a health and safety problem particularly if the employee is working in a safety sensitive position. Drug testing to address this issue is, however, an extremely controversial and complex legal issue. In fact, a number of drug testing cases have been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

To assist employers with this issue, we can draft a drug use policy for a fixed fee.

3. It Is Increasingly Difficult To Predict Whether The Courts Will Enforce A Termination Clause

I have been writing about this issue for a number of years. Despite numerous Ontario court cases including several Court of Appeal decisions I still cannot predict with any degree of certainty whether a termination clause will be enforced. In 2017, the Court of Appeal in North v. Metaswitch Networks Corp. basically overturned its 2016 decision in Oudin v. Centre Francophone de Toronto on the same issue. In the 2018 decision in Nemeth v Hatch Ltd, the Court of Appeal  found that the following clause was enforceable:The Company’s policy with respect to termination is that employment may be terminated by either party with notice in writing. The notice period shall amount to one week per year of service with a minimum of four weeks or the notice required by the applicable labour legislation. Most employment lawyers including myself were surprised by this decision.

We will review and draft needed changes to your employment contract including the termination clause for a fixed fee. For more information on our employment contract service, click here

4. Notice Period For Older Senior Managers May Be Trending Upwards

Since 1960, Ontario judges have been applying the Bardal factors when determining the appropriate reasonable notice period in wrongful dismissal cases. The age of an employee and the employee’s position are two factors that are taken into account.

A couple of 2018 decisions suggest that Ontario judges may be increasing the notice period for older, senior, relatively short service employees. In Chambers v. Global Traffic Technologies Canada Inc a 57 year old general manager with 2.5 years service was awarded 9 months pay in lieu of reasonable notice. In Hale v. Innova Medical Ophthalmics Inc. a  59 year old President with 6 years and 8 months of service was awarded 18 months termination pay. To reduce the litigation risk associated it is a good idea to require these kinds of employees to sign an employment contract with a termination clause – if you can figure out how to draft an enforceable termination clause!

5. The Cost Of Health & Safety Violations Is Likely Going Up

The Ministry of Labour investigates most “critical injuries” as that term is defined under Ontario’s Occupational Health & Safety Act (“OHSA”) and the Ministry often charges an employer for a violation of OHSA in connection with such an accident. Fines for relatively minor injuries often exceed $ 50 000. On December 17, 2017,  the maximum fine for a breach of OHSA increased from $ 500 000 to $ 1 500 000. The Ontario Court of Appeal has stated that deterrence and the size of an employer are two factors that trial judges should take into account when determining fines under OHSA. In the future, I therefore expect the Ministry of Labour will be looking for larger fines from large profitable employers when negotiating plea bargains.

We help employers comply with OHSA. For more information on our fixed fee service, click here

For 30 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him directly at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]

The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.

What does “failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker” mean?

By , January 19, 2018 10:03 am

When the Ministry of Labour lays charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) after a workplace injury it often includes a charge under section 25(2)(h) of OHSA which states that an employer is required to “take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker”.

A recent case, Ontario (Labour) v. Quinton Steel (Wellington) Limited, 2017 ONCA 1006 interpreted this rather broad statutory obligation.

The Facts

Martin Vryenhoek died when he fell from a temporary welding platform. The platform was 6 feet and 6 inches tall, did not have guardrails, and no fall arrest equipment was utilized. The employer was charged under the OHSA for, among other things, “failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker”. Under the applicable regulation, the installation of guardrails was not specifically required, and the worker was not specifically required to wear fall protection equipment because he was working at a height of less than three metres.

The Trial Decision

The trial justice acquitted the employer, concluding that the applicable regulation was a “complete and discrete code with respect to the requirements for protecting workers from falls in a case such as this.”

The Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge and stated that an employer’s duty under section 25(2)(h) to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances does not depend on the existence of a specific regulation prescribing or proscribing particular conduct. Instead, this Court found an employer’s duty under 25(2)(h) is broader than what is contained in the prescribed regulations. The Court also concluded the trial judge failed to ask whether the installation of guardrails was a reasonable precaution necessary in the circumstances of the case. A new trial has been ordered.

Lessons to be Learned

  • An employer can comply with all of its obligations under the regulations under OHSA and be convicted.
  • The duty to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker is broader than the specific obligations that are set out in OHSA and the accompanying regulations.
  • To be in a position to show it took every precaution reasonable in the circumstances an employer should implement a health & safety program which, among other things, identifies workplace hazards and potentially unsafe situations and implements training and instruction in relation to these hazards and unsafe situations. This can include daily toolbox meetings in some circumstances. For other measures that an employer can introduce, click here.

For over 30 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him directly at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]

The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.

Employer Alert: Government Announces Proposed Changes to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act

By , May 30, 2017 2:46 pm

Today the Ontario government announced that it intends to introduce several amendments to the Employment Standard Act. The changes will be included in the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017.

Here are five of the proposed changes:

Minimum Wage increased by 31.5% by January 1, 2019

The current minimum wage for most employees is $ 11.40 per hour. The government proposes increasing this rate to $ 14 on January 1, 2018 and to $ 15 per hour on January 1, 2019.

Increased Vacation Pay

This change would require an employer to provide 3 weeks paid vacation to an employee after 5 years employment. The current minimum standard is two weeks a year for all employees.

Equal Pay for Temporary Agency Workers

This change would require employers to pay workers from a temporary help agency the same pay as their permanent employees performing the same job.

Personal Emergency Leave

All employers must provide an employee with up to 10 days of personal emergency leave a year. Further, the first two days off for personal emergency leave are required to be paid. Currently, small employers with less than 50 employers are exempt from providing any personal emergency leave days.

When Will the Changes Take Effect?

The government intends to pass legislation relatively quickly as some of the proposals would take effect January 1, 2018.

I will publish additional information in a future blog on the proposed changes when the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 is introduced in the Ontario Legislature.

 

 

 


 

For over 25 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him directly at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]

The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.

Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Decision to Reinstate Disabled Employee with 10 Years Back Pay: Will Human Rights Litigation Ever Be the Same Again?

By , June 15, 2016 10:01 am

I predict a recent Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) decision will have a significant impact on human rights litigation. In particular, I suspect disabled employees will start asking employers to find or create alternative positions for them if they cannot perform their job duties because of a disability, and terminated employees will start asking adjudicators to reinstate them with full back pay.

Is an Employer Required to Find or Create an Alternative Position for a Disabled Employee?

In Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board and Sharon Fair the OCA stated that an adjudicator’s decision to reinstate an employee and order the employer to pay 10 years back pay was in keeping with an earlier Supreme Court of Canada decision. In the earlier case, the court articulated an employer’s duty, short of undue hardship, to arrange the employee’s workplace or duties to enable the employee to work, as follows:

Because of the individualized nature of the duty to accommodate and the variety of circumstances that may arise, rigid rules must be avoided. If a business can, without undue hardship, offer the employee a variable work schedule or lighten his or her duties – or even authorize staff transfers – to ensure that the employee can do his or her work, it must do so to accommodate the employee. [Emphasis added.]

In the Hamilton-Wentworth case the disabled employee could not perform the duties of her position but she could perform the duties of another position. An adjudicator with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) found that there would have been no need for the School Board to create a surplus position, as the financial resources existed for one position, or to displace an incumbent employee, as another position was vacant.

The OCA also stated: “…to fulfil its duty to accommodate an employee’s disability, an employer may be required in an appropriate case to place a disabled employee into a position for which he or she is qualified but not necessarily the most qualified.”

Should a Disabled Employee Be Reinstated with Full Back Pay?

One the one hand, the OCA stated that while rarely used in the human rights context, the remedy of reinstatement fell within the Tribunal’s remedial jurisdiction.

When refusing to overturn the adjudicator’s decision to order reinstatement, the OCA noted that Ms. Fair’s employment relationship with the School Board was not fractured and the passage of time had not materially affected her capabilities.

On the other hand, the OCA indicated that a comparison of an adjudicator’s jurisdiction under the Ontario Human Rights Code to an arbitrator’s jurisdiction in the labour relations context was not unreasonable or unusual and referred to an earlier Tribunal decision where an adjudicator, when examining the issue of reinstatement, noted:

While reinstatement orders are rarely requested or ordered in human rights cases, they are “normally” ordered in arbitral cases where a violation of a grievor’s rights has been found, unless there are “concerns that the employment relationship is no longer viable” A.U.P.E. v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004]….. The goal of human rights legislation, which is remedial in nature, is to put the applicant in the position that he or she would have been in had the discrimination not taken place. See Impact Interiors Inc. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (1998)… Where viable, reinstatement is sometimes the only remedy that can give effect to this principle.

What are the Implications of this Decision?

Will this case translate into a shift in how adjudicators exercise their remedial jurisdiction where reinstatement is no longer a rare remedy and becomes as common a remedy as in the arbitration world? If so, I think employee lawyers will start commencing more proceedings at the Tribunal as opposed to the courts all other things being equal. With the prospect of reinstatement and/or large back pay awards there will be more pressure on employers to settle at the Tribunal for larger settlements. Only time however will tell.

For over 25 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]

“The material and information provided on this blog and this website are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information linked or referred to or contained herein. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog, without first retaining counsel and obtaining appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.”

How to Get Away with Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace

By , May 5, 2016 9:00 am

The federal government has announced that there will be marijuana legislation in place by next spring, which should fulfill a campaign promise to legalize marijuana. Marijuana would no longer only be legal for medicinal purposes, but also recreationally. Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott has said that “[w]hile this plan challenges the status quo in many countries, we are convinced it is the best way to protect our youth while enhancing public safety.” So what does this mean for employers? Some may be concerned about employees being impaired by marijuana during working hours.

It seems to be a concern that is on the mind of the TTC as the TTC Board has approved a random alcohol and drug testing policy. This policy is opposed by the Union and we expect the Union will grieve this policy under the applicable collective agreement.

As an employer, if you are considering implementing a random alcohol and drug testing, you should know that except in exceptional circumstances such a policy is generally illegal in Canada. In order for a random testing policy to be acceptable, an employer must show:

  • It is a safety sensitive workplace;
  • There is evidence of a pervasive substance abuse problem which can be tied to the safety of the workplace;
  • Other measures to deter substance abuse have failed; and
  • Testing must assess current impairment

Accordingly, an employer has the burden of meeting a very high evidentiary threshold that is extremely difficult to do. The Courts have stated that the unless an employer can show that there is a pervasive drug problem affecting safety that random testing is generally too invasive and harmful to an employee’s privacy rights; the potential harm outweighs the potential good.

However, an employer can generally have a drug and alcohol policy that requires an employee to submit to drug and/or alcohol testing following a significant incident, accident, or near miss, where it is important to identify the root cause of what occurred. In addition, random drug and/or alcohol testing is generally permissible as part of an employee’s rehabilitation plan provided that it is for a specific duration – typically not longer than two years.

 Lessons for Employers

  1. If you have a safety sensitive work environment, you may want to have a drug and alcohol testing policy that allows for testing after a significant incident, accident, or near miss.
  2. Keep in mind that as employer, you have a duty to accommodate employees with substance abuse problems to the point of undue hardship.  If someone tests positive after an incident, accident or near miss, then you need to consider whether there is a substance abuse problem, which would be considered a disability under human rights legislation.
  3. It is unlikely that a random drug and alcohol testing policy will be permissible unless you can show a persistent drug problem in the workplace which can be tied to safety concerns in the workplace.

If you would like to speak to one of our lawyers about a current drug and alcohol policy or implementing such a policy, please contact us at [email protected] or 647-204-8107.

“The material and information provided on this blog and this website are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information linked or referred to or contained herein. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog, without first retaining counsel and obtaining appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.”

Panorama Theme by Themocracy