header_iceberg.jpg

Posts tagged: toronto employment lawyer

Can a successor employer offer a person lessor termination pay than the original employer?

By , November 17, 2017 5:13 pm

Can a successor employer offer a person lessor termination pay than the original employer?

This issue was addressed by Ontario’s Court of Appeal in Krishnamoorthy v. Olympus Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 873

Facts:  Carsen Group Inc. was the exclusive Canadian distributor for Olympus America Inc. Olympus America decided to terminate its distribution agreement with Carsen, and started a related company, Olympus Canada Inc. to distribute its Canadian products. In July 2006, Olympus America terminated its distribution agreement with Carsen and offered employment to one of Carsen’s employees, Nadesan Krishnamoorthy .  

Olympus Canada provided an offer of employment to Mr. Krishnamoorthy. The terms of the employment agreement limited the notice of employment he was entitled to receive to Employment Standards Act (“ESA”) minimums.  When Mr. Krishnamoorthy accepted Olympus Canada’s offer, he did not receive a signing bonus or any other additional compensation for entering into an employment agreement with Olympus Canada.  

Ten years later, Olympus Canada terminated Mr. Krishnamoorthy’s employment  without cause. Olympus Canada offered him the termination pay he was owed under his employment agreement.  Mr. Krishnamoorthy refused the offer claiming  the termination clause was unenforceable because Olympus Canada had not provided him with any legal consideration.

Issue on appeal: Did the motion judge err in concluding that the termination clause in the parties’ employment agreement was unenforceable due to a lack of consideration?

Decision: The Court of Appeal reversed the motion judge’s decision and ruled that Olympus Canada’s offer of employment amounted to consideration for the termination clause.

Mr. Krishnamoorthy relied on a provision of the Employment Standards Act which deems there to be continuity of employment where an employer sells his business to a purchaser who employs an employee of the employer. However, the Court ruled that this statutory provision  can not be used to claim rights or entitlements on which the ESA is silent. For example,  it does not require the purchaser of a business’ assets to offer employment to employees of that business on the same terms as their original contracts as claimed by Mr. Krishnamoorthy.  Olympus Canada became a new employer upon its purchase of some of Carsen’s assets, and the fact that Mr. Krishnamoorthy’s day-to-day job did not materially change after the sale was not relevant. As such, the Court of Appeal found that Olympus Canada’s offer of employment amounted to consideration for the termination clause.

Lessons to be learned:

  1. If your organization purchases the assets of another business you can offer employees of that business lessor terms of employment such as a lower pay rate and less termination pay.
  2. The employee is generally not required to accept substantially lesser terms of employment.
  3. If the employee accepts lesser terms of employment then a court will generally enforce the lesser terms of employment provided the contract is drafted properly and the terms comply with the Employment Standards Act.

All We Do Is Work

By , October 31, 2017 9:23 am

This blog introduces you to all members of the firm and describes the kinds of cases we handle.

 

MacLeod Law Firm

 

OUR PEOPLE

Nicole Simes has been working with me for more than four years. She represents and advises employers and employees. She spends a lot of her time in court and at administrative tribunals: she is a real litigator! Nicole has a particularly strong background and interest in human rights issues.

Nadia Halum articled with the firm and has been working as an associate for about 1 ½ years. Nadia also represents and advises employers and employees. Nadia is an exceptional legal researcher. She also has considerable experience assisting employers with compliance issues under the Employment Standards Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Fiona Martyn is currently articling with the firm. She supports Nicole, Nadia and me. This includes legal research, drafting pleadings & facta, and putting together court documents.

Judy Lam is our Office Manager and oversees the non-legal aspects of the firm. She is often the first point of contact with the firm.

OUR CLIENTS

Employers

We mostly advise and represent small and medium sized employers. Many of our clients are owner operators. Most of our clients employ 100 or less employees although we do advise several large employers. Many of our employers do not have a person with a formal human resources designation (i.e. CHRP, CHRL, or CHRE) and for these clients, in addition to providing legal advice we often take on the role of trusted advisor.

When we are first introduced to a new client we make sure the employer has a well drafted employment contract. Then we make sure the client has complied with its obligations under Ontario’s employment laws.  Our blog keeps our clients up to date on most employment law developments. We are a phone call away and often answer questions in real time; that is, when you call with a question we can often answer it immediately on the phone.

Employees

We advise employees in all positions and all industries.

We review 100s of severance packages each year; this usually involves a one-hour meeting where we: review the background to the termination; discuss the client’s legal rights; discuss the client’s options; and, tell the client whether we think the package is fair.

If we cannot negotiate a fair settlement for our client then we commence legal proceedings. These proceedings may be commenced in small claims court, at the Ministry of Labour, at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, or in the courts. It is sometimes in our client’s interest to commence two or more legal proceedings.

We also review scores of employment contracts each year. After reviewing the history of contract negotiations, we inform our clients which parts of the contract are a problem and suggest ways to change the contract so it is more employee friendly. If our client is the employer’s clear first choice then we can often help the person secure significant enhancements to the employer’s initial offer.

ALL WE DO IS WORK

The MacLeod Law Firm will continue to restrict its practice to workplace law which includes employment law, labour law (i.e. workplaces that are unionized), and human rights law.

We have three lawyers to assist you with your legal needs. We operate a collaborative law practice which means we often consult with each other to get different perspectives on a case. I also delegate work to Nicole, Nadia and Fiona as appropriate which means our client receive cost effective service.

We understand that every client has a different risk tolerance. We get to know our clients so the advice we provide is consistent with this risk tolerance and makes business sense.

For those readers who have not retained the MacLeod Law Firm in the past and want to know how we can help your organization, please call me at 416 317-9894 at your convenience.

 

Case Study: Why You Need to Periodically Review Your Employment Contract

By , October 11, 2017 9:08 am

A well-drafted employment contract is the best employment law investment an employer can make. It protects an employer from significant liability and will usually save thousands of dollars in termination costs.

An employment contract should be reviewed periodically because judges are refusing to enforce termination clauses if they are not drafted properly.

In a recent case, Covenoho v. Pendylum Ltd.,2017 ONCA 284, Ontario’s highest court concluded a termination clause was not legally enforceable because it might breach the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”) in the future.

The Facts

Joss Covenoho signed a one year fixed-term contract with Pendylum Inc. The employer terminated her agreement without advance notice when she had been employed for less that 3 months. The termination clause stated in part that the contract could be terminated before the end of the fixed-term “if the Pendylum Client to which you have been contracted terminate[s] its contract with Pendylum for your services”.

Decision by Motion Judge

The motion judge concluded that since the employee had been employed for less than three months, she was not entitled to any notice of termination. Under the ESA an employer is not required to provide any notice of employment to an employee during the first three months of employment.

Decision by Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal reversed the motion judge’s decision and found that the termination provisions were void. It ruled that “the terms must be construed as if (the employee) had continued to be employed beyond three months; if a provision’s application potentially violates the ESA at any date after hiring, it is void”. In this case, if Ms. Covenoho had been terminated after three months of work, then the termination clause would have violated the ESA because she could have been terminated without any notice of termination (or any payment in lieu of notice) contrary to the ESA.  The court also ruled the employee was entitled to receive the salary that she would have earned for the balance of the fixed-term contract.

Lessons for employers:

1)   Employers should periodically review their termination clauses to ensure they are properly drafted and do not provide shorter notice than required by the ESA.

2)  As we have written about before, it is generally a bad idea to enter into a fixed term contract. If a fixed term contract must be used, it must include an enforceable early termination clause.

On October 16 and October 20 MacLeod Law Firm is holding seminars in Toronto and Barrie that will cover three topics. One topic is why employment contracts need to be reviewed periodically. Cases like this one is one reason but there are other reasons. Information on the seminar can be found here.

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.

 

Negligent misrepresentation during recruitment process costs employer $83,000

By , October 10, 2017 4:53 pm

Providing misleading information to an employee during the recruitment process about the eligibility for an employee benefits program cost an employer $83,000

Feldstein v 364 Northern Development Corporation

Mr. Feldstein applied for a software engineer position with 364 Northern Development Corporation (“the Company”). Before accepting the position, Mr. Feldstein asked the Company’s Chief Information Officer (“CIO”) about the eligibility requirements for the Company’s long-term disability (“LTD”) plan. As Mr. Feldstein suffered from cystic fibrosis, this information was very important to him, as he believed that he would require substantial LTD benefits in the future.

The CIO provided Mr. Feldstein with a brochure which summarised the Company’s LTD benefits, which contained a “proof of good health” clause. When Mr. Feldstein asked what this clause meant, the CIO explained that he would qualify for LTD benefits after working for the Company for three months. Based on this information, Mr. Feldstein accepted the position and signed an employment contract.

The employment contract in question contained the following “entire agreement” clause:

“This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior communications, representations, understandings and agreements whether verbal or written between the parties with respect to the subject-matter hereof.”

The purpose of an entire agreement clause is to prevent parties who have entered into a final contract from invoking prior discussions or understandings to give a different meaning to its provisions.

However, the contract did not contain any details of the benefits plan. Instead, the clause in the contract stated:

“The Employee shall be entitled to participate in all rights and benefits under any life insurance, disability, medical, dental, health and accident plans maintained by the company for its employees generally. In addition, the Employee shall be entitled to participate in all rights and benefits under other employee plan or plans as may be implemented by the Company during the term of this Agreement.

Shortly after accepting the position, Mr. Feldstein applied for LTD benefits as his health deteriorated significantly. He expected to receive full coverage of up to $5000 per month. Instead, Mr. Feldstein was only eligible for $1000 per month because he had not completed a medical questionnaire which was required to establish “proof of good health.” Mr. feldstein sued the Company for negligent misrepresentation.

Decision

The trial judge made the following findings:

  • the CIO’s explanation of “proof of good health” was inaccurate and misleading;
  • the Company was negligent in making this representation as the CIO had not taken any steps to verify the accuracy of the information he provided and the Company failed to provide Mr. Feldstein with the required medical questionnaire
  • it was reasonable for Mr. Feldstein to rely on the information the CIO provided; and
  • Mr. Feldstein would not have accepted an employment offer that did not provide adequate LTD coverage and acceptable eligibility requirements due to his health concerns.

The Company attempted to argue that the entire agreement clause in the employment contract meant that Mr. Feldstein could not sue for negligent misrepresentation. The court rejected this argument, as the CIO’s statement relating to the meaning of “proof of good health” was not an express term of the contract. As it was a matter outside of the contract, the clause could not exclude liability for pre-contractual misrepresentation.

Mr. Feldstein was awarded $83,336.80 as compensation for lost LTD benefits and $10,000 for aggravated damages. On appeal, the award for loss of benefits was upheld, but the aggravated damages were overturned.

Lessons to be learned

  1. Anyone interviewing a job applicant should provide accurate information concerning employee benefits; otherwise, the organisation may be required to self-insure for the value of benefits that are subsequently denied by the group insurer.
  2. Including an entire agreement clause in a contract like the one cited above does not always protect an employer from negligent misrepresentations made during the hiring process.
  3. It is important to periodically review employment contracts including entire agreement clauses and clauses dealing with group benefits to ensure they still protect employer interests in light of recent developments in the law.

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.

Why Asking Your Employee to “Go Clubbing” Could Cost You

By , September 19, 2017 11:36 am

Most employers understand that sexual harassment at work is against the law. Despite this, sexual harassment is still pervasive in Ontario workplaces. Where managers and employers can get into trouble is the area of sexual solicitation.

The Human Rights Code states that employees have the right to be free from advances in the workplace from those able to offer or deny a benefit –  i.e. sexual propositions from a boss with the offer of a promotion are not permissible.  This is true where the person making the proposition knows or should know that it is not welcome.

Examples of this type of behaviour – and the real consequences of it – are evident in Anderson v. Law Help ltd.

The Case

Safari Anderson started working for Law Help Ltd. as a paralegal.  After some time, her boss starting asking her about her plans outside of work.  He started with inquiring about what she was doing on Saturday night.  He later asked her if she wanted to “go clubbing” with him.  He asked whether she would like to “hang out” on the weekend or “go away together” for the weekend. He told her he was thinking about her and that liked her. He told Ms. Anderson he would take care of her, implying that if she spent time with him, she would advance at work.

Mr. Giuseppe then punished Ms. Anderson for not going out with him outside of work.  He stopped paying her. He treated her in a hostile manner. He yelled at her and refused to let her attend a medical appointment. Ms. Anderson ultimately had to resign.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed all of the evidence and found that Mr. Giuseppe’s advances breached the Code. It reiterated that persistent propositions can create a negative psychological and emotional work environment. While the language used by her boss, Giuseppe Alessandro, was not overtly sexualized, it was not allowed under the Code.

The Tribunal ordered Law Help Ltd. and Mr. Giuseppe to pay Ms. Anderson $22,000 for the injury to her dignity along with lost wages she incurred after quitting.

Lessons

As an employer or manager, asking out a colleague or employee can be expensive, and not because of the cost of the date.  Even where there are not sexual or gender-based comments, repeated advances of this nature are not allowed in Ontario’s workplaces.  They can affect people’s dignity and sense of value in their jobs. Manager and employers must be extremely careful when engaging co-workers or subordinates in any form of romantic or sexual relationship.

For more information about sexual harassment in the workplace, please see here and here.

If you have concerns about your employee’s behaviour and would like to speak to a lawyer at MacLeod Law Firm, you can reach us at [email protected]  or 647-204-8107.

“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.”

Panorama Theme by Themocracy