header_iceberg.jpg

Posts tagged: MacLeod Law Firm

“We’re Getting Rid of Bill 148”, says Premier Ford

By , October 3, 2018 10:34 am

After two years of public consultations, the Liberal government introduced many changes to the Employment Standards Act in November 2017 but delayed implementing several of these changes until 2019. The changes were contained in Bill 148.

During the election campaign, Premier Ford said he would stop the $ 1 an hour increase in the minimum wage that is currently scheduled to take place on January 1, 2019. But based on statements he made in the legislature yesterday, it looks like he may be rolling back other Bill 148 changes.

This is yet another example of a government changing the legal landscape at Ontario’s workplaces. Judges and administrative tribunals also impose new obligations on employers each year.

Every two weeks I blog about a recent employment law development but every year I pick three issues that I believe deserve special, in-depth attention.

Our Annual Employment Law Seminar

On October 23rd and October 24th, the MacLeod Law Firm will cover three important workplace issues at half-day seminars in Toronto and Barrie.

What Topics Are We Covering This Year?

(i) The Impact of Legal Recreational Cannabis in the workplace

In about two weeks, the federal government is legalizing the sale of recreational cannabis. Each province is going to decide how to sell cannabis and introduce laws that will prohibit a person from ingesting more than a prescribed amount of cannabis and driving. In the last week, Ontario has introduced such a law. We will discuss the components of a workplace policy that addresses recreational cannabis use.

(ii) Rolling Back Bill 148

Yesterday, Premier Ford signalled that legislation is coming that will roll back some parts of Bill 148. We will discuss the fate of the proposed increase in the minimum wage, recently introduced paid personal emergency leave days, and new scheduling, on call, and pay transparency laws that are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2019.

(iii) Ontario’s Human Rights Minefield

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has released a number of decisions this year which could significantly impact your employment practices. One decision may force employers to extend group extended medical benefits to employees who are over 65 years old. Another decision will force some employers to change the way they hire employees from different countries. We will discuss what these decisions mean to you.

Click here for more information on this seminar.

Who Should Attend Our Seminar

If you are responsible for HR issues at your workplace or you have to deal with employment issues as part of your job or you are ultimately responsible for paying monies to settle employee complaints, then you will benefit from attending this seminar.

The cost of this seminar is $199 plus H.S.T. To register, please email [email protected] or call 647-204-8107.

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.

Do you only hire workers who can work in Canada on a permanent basis?

By , September 25, 2018 9:56 am

Imperial Oil Limited recently found out the hard way that imposing a Canadian citizen requirement as a job qualification can be a costly mistake.

This case shows that the cost to respond to a human rights application filed by an unsuccessful job applicant can be significant even if a job applicant lies on his application form. The hearing in this case took 13 days.

The Facts

After graduating from McGill University Muhammad Haseeb applied for and obtained a “postgraduate work permit” (PGWP) for a three year term. The PGWP allowed him to work full time, anywhere and with any employer in Canada.

Mr. Haseeb then applied for an entry level position as Project Engineer at Imperial Oil. A condition of employment was that an applicant provide proof of his eligibility “to work in Canada on a permanent basis” by way of (1) Canadian birth certificate (2) Canadian citizenship certificate or (3) Canadian certificate of permanent residence (permanent resident card) or the “permanence requirement”. His permit did not satisfy the permanence requirement so he lied and said he could meet Imperial Oil’s permanence requirement. He went through the application process and was offered a job conditional on proving proof he could “work in Canada on a permanent basis”. He couldn’t so the offer was revoked.

The Issue

Mr. Haseeb claimed that Imperial Oil’s permanence requirement violated his right not to be discriminated against on the basis of citizenship and that the permissible ways to discriminate on the basis of citizenship did not apply.

The Law

Section 5. (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code states: “ Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of …citizenship, …”

Discrimination of the basis of citizenship is permitted in the situations set out in section 16 of the Code: namely:

  1.  (1) Canadian Citizenship – A right under Part I to non-discrimination because of citizenship is not infringed where Canadian citizenship is a requirement, qualification or consideration imposed or authorized by law.(2) – A right under Part I to non-discrimination because of citizenship is not infringed where Canadian citizenship or lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence is a requirement, qualification or consideration adopted for the purpose of fostering and developing participation in cultural, educational, trade union or athletic activities by Canadian citizens or persons lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence.

    (3)  A right under Part I to non-discrimination because of citizenship is not infringed where Canadian citizenship or domicile in Canada with the intention to obtain Canadian citizenship is a requirement, qualification or consideration adopted by an organization or enterprise for the holder of chief or senior executive positions.

Decision

The adjudicator concluded that Imperial Oil’s eligibility requirement directly discriminated against job applicants on the basis of citizenship and that none of the defences set out in section 16 applied.

In coming to this conclusion the adjudicator stated:

To obtain protection from discrimination under the Code on the basis of “citizenship”, the applicant need only establish that the alleged discriminatory treatment is linked to his personal characteristic of being a non-citizen of Canada (or non-Canadian citizen).

It is thus the Tribunal’s view that in direct discrimination cases … no general BFOR defence is available to a respondent. A respondent in a direct discrimination case has only statutory defence(s) available to excuse a conduct or policy that is found to discriminate in a direct (or express, targeted) manner “where the requirement expressly included a prohibited ground of discrimination” …

In the alternative, assuming the bona fide occupational qualification (or BFOQ) defence was available, the adjudicator concluded this defence was not proved. In particular, “Given the …(conclusion) that I(mperial) O(il)’s permanence requirement is not an “occupational requirement’, there is no need for this Tribunal to examine at length the bona fides or honesty of IO’s belief that the requirement achieved its purported purpose of succession planning and retention of trained employees, or, to examine IO’s assertion of undue hardship.”

Lessons to be Learned

  1. Employers should not establish overly restrictive citizen requirements for jobs –  especially for entry level positions.
  2. An unsuccessful job applicant can file an on-line no-cost human rights application and the applicant is not required to hire a lawyer to do so. The Human Rights Legal Support Centre provides free legal advice to job applicants who want to commence these legal proceedings.
  3. The cost to defend a human rights application can be staggering. An employer should carefully prepare for the three-hour mediation that takes place near the beginning of the application process and try to negotiate a settlement at the mediation (or before) if a reasonable settlement can be reached at that time.

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.

Does an Unpaid Suspension Constitute a Constructive Dismissal? Sometimes

By , September 11, 2018 10:06 am

Employers are increasingly suspending employees when allegations of misconduct are made against an employee. This includes allegations of sexual or workplace harassment and allegations of financial improprieties. If such a suspension constitutes a wrongful dismissal then these suspensions can expose employers to significant legal liability.

General Rule

According to Ontario’s Court of Appeal, an unpaid administrative suspension generally triggers a constructive dismissal “unless it (is) an express or implied term of the contract that the employer (can) suspend an employee without pay.”

A Case Study

A recent court case considered the suspension of a security supervisor at a casino. The employee needed to maintain a valid gaming registration from a government agency as a condition of employment. The casino’s Security Department was responsible for managing the casino’s lost and found processes, which include the collection of property and money from the casino’s facilities. The government agency that issues the required gaming registrations told the security supervisor that he was under investigation for theft in relation to the lost and found department but noted that no criminal charges had been laid.

One of the policies in the casino’s handbook stated:

Investigative Suspension may be used as part of the coaching and counselling process to verify allegations of misconduct.  During an investigation, the Associate may be prohibited from working. If a decision is made to separate the Associate’s employment, he or she may not be reimbursed for time spent on Investigative Suspension.

The casino immediately suspended the employee without pay.

The employee was subsequently charged criminally and the casino suspended its investigation into the allegations against the employee until the criminal charges were concluded. About 15 months later, the employee surrendered his gaming registration. Shortly thereafter, the casino wrote the employee and told him that in light of the requirement that he maintain a valid gaming registration, “his employment was at an end since he had surrendered his gaming registration.”

Is an Unpaid Suspension Legally Permitted? The Legal Test

The trial judge concluded that the employee’s suspension was clearly justified in the circumstances. The issue to decide was whether the casino could justify an unpaid suspension.

When considering this issue, the court applied the following test:

… absent express language in the employment contract stipulating that any suspension would be without pay, the burden rests on the appellant to establish that a suspension without pay was justified.  If the appellant cannot justify a suspension without pay, then taking that step amounts to a unilateral change in the employment relationship that constitutes a breach of the contract of employment.

Can a Paid Suspension be Converted into an Unpaid Suspension?

The court also discussed at what point a paid suspension can morph into an unpaid suspension.

While there might have been a point later in time when the suspension of the respondent without pay could have been justified, depending how matters unfolded, there was an insufficient foundation for a suspension without pay on December 19, when the respondent was told he was suspended and escorted out of the premises.  In my view, when the appellant suspended the respondent without pay on December 19, it made a unilateral change to the employment relationship and breached the implied term of the employment contract that the power to suspend without pay would not be exercised unreasonably.

The trial judge and the appeal court concluded the unpaid suspension constituted a constructive dismissal in this case and awarded the employee damages in lieu of reasonable notice of termination.

Lessons to Be Learned:

  1. An employer does not generally have an implied right to suspend an employee without pay during an investigation.
  2. An employer should therefore include a term in its employment contract giving it the right to suspend an employee with or without pay during an investigation.
  3. An employer should not impose an unpaid suspension unless there is evidence of employee misconduct. Accordingly, absent extraordinary circumstances, an employer should generally investigate the misconduct allegations that trigger the employee suspension promptly. If evidence of misconduct is found to exist, an employer may be able to quickly convert a short paid suspension into an unpaid suspension.

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.

The MacLeod Law Firm’s 2018 Employment Law Seminar: A ½-Day of Ford, Cannabis & Human Rights

By , August 28, 2018 9:52 am

Subscribers to this blog receive a brief description of a new employment law development every two weeks.

Some topics however deserve more than a cursory discussion. We have selected three such topics to cover in a ½ day seminar on October 23rd in Toronto and on October 24th in Barrie.

Here is a brief summary of the three topics we will be discussing at this seminar:

The legalization of the cannabis

On October 17, 2018, Canada is scheduled to become the second country on earth to legalize cannabis. The federal government could have simply decriminalized cannabis use but it went further and established a framework for the legal sale of cannabis. Each province will decide how to distribute cannabis, how to amend impaired driving laws, and set the price of cannabis.

It is important that each employer understand its rights and obligations under the new cannabis legislation and to set and enforce expectations with respect to cannabis use and impairment in the workplace including employees who have been prescribed medical marijuana.

We will discuss issues that should be addressed in a workplace drug policy.

The employment law landscape is changing under the new PC government

The Progressive Conservative government has stated that Ontario is open for business and we expect this will mean less regulation of Ontario workplaces and it may mean that certain legislation will not be implemented as expected. For example, during the provincial election campaign, leader Doug Ford stated that a $1 per hour increase in the minimum wage will not take effect on January 1, 2019 as planned. There are a number of planned amendments to the Employment Standards Act that are scheduled to take place in 2019 and we believe the PC government may delay or scrap some of these proposed changes.

We will discuss what laws the PC government has introduced as of mid-October and identify which laws will not be enacted in 2019 as originally planned.

The human rights landscape is changing

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario processes thousands of applications each year and issues decisions that affect all employers. These decisions can provide guidance to employers such as its decisions on what an employer must do to satisfy its duty to accommodate an employee with a disability. Did you know that an adjudicator recently concluded that a law which allows an employer to provide an employee over 65 years old with lesser health benefits than a younger worker was unconstitutional? Does your group health plan permit this kind of age discrimination?

We will discuss the most significant human rights decisions in the last year and what they mean to employers.

The cost of this seminar is $199 plus HST. To register, please email [email protected] or call 647-204-8107.

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.

Another Example of a Senior Executive Being Awarded More Damages Than Expected

By , August 21, 2018 10:45 am

 

A recent case decided by the Ontario Court of Appeal demonstrates yet again that relying on informal understandings with an employee about their rights on termination is a very bad idea.

In this case, a 51-year-old President was terminated after a little more than 11 years of service.

Judge Concludes 51-year-old Employee with 11 Years Service is Entitled to 17 Months Notice of Termination

The employee did not sign an employment contract so he was entitled to reasonable notice of termination. A well drafted termination clause would have limited the employer’s exposure to 8 weeks notice of termination. Without it, the trial judge concluded he was entitled to 17 months common law notice of termination.

Court of Appeal Concludes the Employee was Entitled to a Bonus Despite the Employer’s Past Practice

The employee claimed he was entitled to a bonus during the 17-month notice period. The trial judge disagreed. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s decision on this issue. The Appeal Court concluded that even though the employer’s practice was not to pay a terminated employee a bonus, he was nevertheless entitled to a $166,945 bonus. In this regard, the Court restated the law as follows:

  1. Was the bonus an integral part of his compensation package, triggering a common law entitlement to damages in lieu of bonus?; and
  2. If so, is there any language in the bonus plan that would restrict his common law entitlement to damages in lieu of a bonus over the notice period?

Lessons to be Learned:

  1. All employees, but especially high paid executives, should be required to sign an employment agreement with a termination clause. Reasonable notice periods for older employees seem to be going up and often exceed one month per year of service.

  2. All variable compensation plans should clearly set out an employee’s rights under the plan when his or her employment is terminated. There are several recent Appeal Court decisions which have strictly read contractual language against the employer. These plans should be reviewed by an employment lawyer regularly.

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.

Panorama Theme by Themocracy