Canadian Employment & Pension Law - Employment Law | Labour Law | Pension and Benefits Law

Michèle Robichaud -

Le 28 février 2013, la Commission des relations du travail (la CRT) annule le congédiement et ordonne la réintégration d'un employé ayant porté plainte en vertu de l'article 124 de la Loi sur les normes du travail (la LNT), dans le contexte d'un non-respect allégué par l'employé d'une entente de réintégration, dite "de dernière chance".

Les faits

Monsieur Saucier était à l'emploi de la Ville de Québec (la Ville) pendant près de vingt ans à titre de contremaître. À partir de 2006, il commence à connaître des problèmes d'absentéisme liés à un problème d’alcoolisme. À la suite de chaque retour au travail, la Ville offre à Monsieur Saucier diverses mesures d'accommodement.

Continue Reading

Kelly O’Ferrall -

In a previous post, we discussed a decision which held that, PolyOne Canada Inc. (PolyOne), did not have just cause for terminating a senior employee who committed a safety violation and failed to report it, despite finding that the incident was very serious and could have resulted in harm to the employee. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, although it disagreed, in part, with the basis for the lower court’s decision.

Continue Reading

Nicolas Deslandres -

La Cour d’appel a récemment rendu un arrêt aux conséquences majeures,en renversant le courant jurisprudentiel majoritaire qui prévalait jusqu’alors au Québec en matière de préavis de démission. Dans un arrêt rendu à deux contre un, la Cour d’appel commence par rappeler qu’un employeur peut, à sa discrétion, renoncer au préavis de démission qu’un employé a l’obligation de lui donner en vertu de l’article 2091 du Code civil du Québec ( C.c.Q. ). Se penchant ensuite sur les conséquences d’une telle renonciation, la juge Marie-France Bich tranche qu’il ne s’agit pas là d’une fin d’emploi provoquée par l’employeur au sens de l’article 82 de la Loi sur les normes du travail ( L.n.t. ). L’employeur n’est donc pas alors tenu d’indemniser l’employé.  

Continue Reading

Kelly O’Ferrall -

In a somewhat unique case, the Ontario Superior Court confirmed the principle that, even where a document is prima facie privileged as a solicitor-client communication, unfairness can result in the waiver of such privilege.  In this case, an employee was accidentally copied on an email from a senior manager to counsel regarding the potential termination of the employee.  Despite the manager’s attempts to recall the email and otherwise prevent the employee from reading it, the employee, not surprisingly, did read the email and shared it with her lawyer.  Although it is not clear from the decision what exactly the email said, the employee subsequently left her employment and commenced an action for wrongful dismissal. 

Continue Reading

Diana Theophilopoulos -

In the recent decision involving Services Entretien d’édifices Allied Inc. (Allied), the Labour Relations Board of Quebec cancelled the terminations imposed on five maintenance employees for theft and reserved its jurisdiction to determine the appropriate remedy and damages.

Allied provides maintenance services to public buildings and has 250 employees. Allied has entered into several contracts with clients providing for the cleaning of their buildings.

Continue Reading

Kelly O’Ferrall and Mari Maimets -

In the 2011 decision of Plester v. Polyone Canada Inc., an Ontario Court held that an employer did not have just cause to terminate a senior employee who committed a serious safety violation and subsequently failed to report it, in violation of company policy.

John Plester was a line supervisor at Polyone Canada Inc. (Polyone), a company that manufactured plastic pellets using a complex and potentially dangerous process. Polyone had a strong health and safety culture, and emphasized what it termed the “Cardinal Rules” related to health and safety which employees were required to follow.  One such rule was a requirement that machines being worked on by employees be locked out in order to avoid the possibility that the machine could start up accidentally and cause injury. Another Cardinal Rule was that employees were strictly required to report any safety violations, even minor incidents.

Continue Reading

Will Hockin and Mari Maimets -

In the recent decision of Ghanny v. 498326 Ontario Limited, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that a former employee’s wrongful dismissal action could not succeed because he failed to mitigate his losses when he rejected another position offered to him by his employer.

Background

Aleem Ghanny (Mr. Ghanny) had been an employee of a Toyota dealership for 18 years when he was informed that his position as Service Manager was to be terminated as a result of management reorganization. Upon informing Mr. Ghanny of this decision, the dealership owner offered him another management position with the same salary at a nearby Suzuki dealership, a recently acquired and related business. Mr. Ghanny, however, refused the offer for two (2) reasons: i) he thought his seniority at the Toyota dealership would be lost if he relocated, and ii) he was concerned that the future of the Suzuki dealership was uncertain.  The owner, however, made it clear to Mr. Ghanny that his seniority would be transferred to Suzuki, and that whatever the future of the Suzuki dealership was, his job would not be at risk.

Continue Reading

Frédéric Henry -

Le 14 février dernier, dans l’affaire Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse c. Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, la Cour d’appel a confirmé une décision du Tribunal des droits de la personne (le TDP) qui avait conclu que le refus du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (le CHUS) de considérer la candidature du plaignant, un ex-employé congédié, n’était pas discriminatoire et ne violait pas les articles 10 et 16 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne du Québec (la Charte).

Faits

Le plaignant a travaillé à un poste d’aide à l’alimentation au CHUS de 1985  jusqu’à son congédiement survenu en 2001 pour absentéisme chronique occasionné par sa dépendance à l’alcool. Le plaignant contesta son congédiement, mais l’arbitre rejeta le grief au motif que l’employeur avait à maintes reprises offert une « dernière chance » au plaignant, qui à chaque fois s’était engagé à suivre des traitements et à régler son problème d’alcool sans jamais respecter ses promesses.

Continue Reading

William Hockin and Khalfan Khalfan -

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that the duty to mitigate following dismissal does not apply when a dismissed employee’s contract contains an express notice of termination provision and is silent with respect to mitigation.

Continue Reading

Diana Theophilopoulos -

Dans une décision récente la Cour d'appel du Québec a déclaré que le devoir de loyauté prévu à l'article 2088 du Code civil du Québec continue rarement plus de quelques mois après la cessation d'emploi d'un employé.

Dans cet arrêt, l'appelant, Concept Électronique, a demandé à la Cour d'appel de prolonger la durée d'une injonction de trois mois émise par la Cour supérieure, ordonnant à deux anciens employés de s'abstenir de solliciter ses clients.

Continue Reading

Diana Theophilopoulos -

Dans une décision récente la Cour supérieure du Québec a refusé d'accorder une indemnité de fin d’emploi à un employé de 75 ans, car ce dernier a manqué à son obligation de mitiger ses dommages à la suite de la cessation de son emploi.

Faits

M. Levy a commencé son emploi au Standard Desk Inc. en avril 1971. En mai 2009, les employés de Standard Desk, incluant M. Levy, ont été informés de la fermeture de l'usine de la compagnie. M. Levy, ainsi que d'autres employés, se sont vu offrir un poste avec l'une des entités liées de Standard Desk. Le nouveau poste offert à M. Levy était similaire à son poste actuel, avec le même salaire et les mêmes avantages. L'emplacement du nouveau poste constituait la seule différence. Ce dernier était situé dans la ville de Granby, alors que M. Levy travaillait à Laval. Toutefois, la compagnie était prête à offrir aux employés, à ses frais,  un service de navette quotidien entre les deux villes. M. Levy a catégoriquement refusé l'offre et, par conséquent, a été licencié en décembre 2009. M. Levy avait 75 ans au moment de sa fin d’emploi. Par la suite, l'avocat de M. Levy a envoyé une mise en demeure à Standard Desk réclamant près de 100,000.00 $ à titre d'indemnité tenant lieu de préavis de fin d’emploi et des dommages moraux.

Continue Reading

Michèle Robichaud -

In a recent decision, the Court of Quebec stated that, in the event employers dismiss employees who have fixed term employment contracts, they must pay the remainder of the term identified in the contract.

The Court concluded that even if the employee accepts a payment in lieu of notice, this does not imply that the employee has renounced to his right to claim amounts owed in accordance with his fixed-term contract, in a situation where no release was signed following such payment. As a result, the Court stated that an employee on a fixed-term contract has the right to receive compensation equal to the total amount of income provided for in the contract up to its expiry date.

Continue Reading

Stephanie Weschler -

On March 13, 2012, the Superior Court of Quebec rejected the union’s Motion for Judicial Review following an arbitration decision which confirmed an employer’s decision to terminate an employee for having used the company’s telephone system for personal use.

The employee, a receptionist working for Société des établissements de plein air du Québec (Sépaq) (the Employer) for over 10 years, was dismissed for cause following an investigation which confirmed that the employee made several local and long distance telephone calls during his hours of work, using the Employer’s telephone system and, at the Employer’s expense.

Continue Reading

Kelly O’Ferrall and Tiffany Wong -

In the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice case of Reichard v. Kuntz Electroplating Inc., the Court held that an employer was justified in its decision to terminate an employee for cause after almost 24 years of service due to the non-disclosure of a workplace affair that violated company policy and resulted in a loss of trust in the employee.

Continue Reading

Kathleen Chevalier -

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice proves that employers cannot be too careful when drafting termination provisions.  The Court held, among other things, a potential contravention of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 was sufficient to render a termination provision unenforceable, even if at the time of termination the provision provided the employee with an amount in excess of his ESA entitlements.

Continue Reading

Kelly O’Ferrall -

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a $15,000 punitive damages award arising from the callous manner in which a long-service employee was terminated. The trial judge’s decision was discussed in an earlier post (click here to review our summary of that decision). The Court of Appeal did not, however, consider the issue of whether the employer’s behaviour was sufficiently egregious to warrant an award for punitive damages. Rather, the basis for striking down the award was that the employee did not specifically request punitive damages in his pleadings, thus it was not open to the trial judge to make such an award.

Continue Reading

Randall Boessenkool -

In Elsegood v. Cambridge Spring Service (2001) Ltd., the Ontario Court of Appeal examined whether termination due to length of lay-off under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) also qualifies as termination at common law. Once his layoff met the definition of termination under the ESA, Mr. Elsegood successfully filed a claim for common law damages for his termination. The Court of Appeal agreed that termination under the ESA was termination for all purposes, and Mr. Elsegood was entitled to common law damages. 

Continue Reading

Barbara Sheng - 

Au Québec, l'article 1621 du Code civil du Québec permet l'attribution de dommages-intérêts punitifs lorsque la loi le permet et il énonce des critères non-exhaustifs qui doivent être considérés dans l'évaluation du montant. Notamment, la somme ne doit pas excéder ce qui est suffisant pour assurer l'objectif de prévention.

Le 3 novembre dernier, la Cour supérieure, dans l'affaire Chalifour c. IBM Canada ltée, a accordé à un directeur en chef un montant de 35 000$ à titre de dommages moraux ainsi qu'une somme de 300 000$ en dommages-intérêts punitifs pour atteinte intentionnelle à sa dignité et à sa réputation lors de son congédiement déguisé. Le montant attribué en dommages-intérêts dans cette décision est parmi l'un des plus élevés jamais octroyé en matière de congédiement, et ce au Canada.

Continue Reading

Sylvie Thibault -

The Court of Appeal of Québec has recently reversed a judgment of the Superior Court that had granted two former employees an indemnity in lieu of reasonable notice corresponding to 36 months and supplementary pension payments based on past practice.

In this case, the employees had successfully argued before the Superior Court that the conduct of the employer in the past with respect to its retiring employees had implicitly transformed the defined contribution pension plan into a defined benefit plan. Based on the definition of "usage" under Québec civil law, the Superior Court concluded that the employer had implicitly committed to providing all employees with additional pension enhancements, in addition to the defined contribution pension plan thus allowing them to enjoy a de facto defined benefit pension plan.

Continue Reading

Randall Boessenkool -

In the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice case of Jensen v. Schaeffler Canada Inc., the Court found that loss of earnings benefits provided to a former employee pursuant to an Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board “Labour Market Re-entry Program” should be credited against a damage claim for wrongful dismissal. This was significant as the amounts paid under the WSIB program were greater than the amounts granted to the employee for damages in her wrongful dismissal claim.

Continue Reading

The past year has seen a number of interesting employment law decisions by the courts. Cases have seen courts recognize a category of "dependent contractor" with reasonable notice of termination entitlements, the award of a lengthy notice period despite gaps in continuous employee service and the consideration of when an employment contract can be considered frustrated by an employee's disability. Meanwhile, new pension legislation at both the Ontario and federal level will have employment law ramifications.

The webcast of a recent seminar hosted by Stikeman Elliott and the Association of Corporate Counsel, which featured a number of industry panellists and considered these developments and their impact on employers, is now available online. Printed material is also available.

The importance of being thorough before terminating an employee has once again been highlighted by the Commission des relations du travail (CRT) in a recent decision that upheld a employee's complaint under Article 124 of the Labor Standards Act and reinstated the employee.

In this case, an employee of Moroccan origin had planned a trip to Morocco from June 4 to July 12, 2008. Several months before the trip, however, the employee was placed on indefinite disability because of back pain.

Despite his disability, the employee left Quebec for his vacation, as planned, on June 4, 2008. Although his spouse returned to Quebec on schedule in order to resume her employment, the employee decided to extend his vacation with his children until August 15, 2008 and to undergo kinesitherapy treatments (treatment of disease by movements or exercise). He then advised his employer of the treatments that he was to undergo in Morocco. The employer authorized the extension of the employee's stay abroad but asked for a doctor's note to justify the absence. In the end, however, the employee passed on the doctor's note - stipulating that the employee must remain in a "warm and non-humid" environment - only three days after his treatments had ended.

Continue Reading

In the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in RBC Dominion Securities Inc. v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. (2008 SCC 54), the SCC confirmed that there is no general duty owed by departing employees to refrain from competing against their former employer; however, employees do have an implied duty to provide reasonable notice of resignation and to act in good faith.

Background

RBC Dominion Securities Inc. (RBC) and Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. (Merrill Lynch) both had offices in Cranbrook, British Columbia, and each was the other's main competition in the investment brokerage business. In November 2000, without any advance notice, virtually all of the investment advisors at RBC left and went to Merrill Lynch. Among the advisors to leave RBC was the branch manager who had coordinated the mass exit. As a result of the departure, only two junior investment advisors and two administrative staff members remained at the branch.  In addition, in the preceding weeks before the advisors left RBC, several of RBC's client records were surreptitiously copied and transferred to Merrill Lynch.

Continue Reading

The Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled in the case of Hydro-Québec, unanimously reversing the decision rendered by the Court of Appeal of Québec in February 2006. In doing so, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of an employee as a result of excessive absenteeism due to an illness, after several unsuccessful attempts to accommodate her.

In this case, the plaintiff had held the position of Sales, Rates and Commercial Programs Clerk for approximately twenty-four (24) months at the time of her dismissal by Hydro-Québec. Suffering from mixed personality disorder with borderline and dependent character traits, the employee had been absent from work for extended periods of time on several occasions during the seven (7) years preceding her termination. As a result, the employer had proceeded to terminate the plaintiff's employment due to her high level of absenteeism and her inability to perform her work duties on a regular basis for the reasonably foreseeable future. In order to make this decision, the employer relied on the opinion of two (2) experts in psychiatry who believed that the plaintiff's work attendance would remain a problem in the future.

Continue Reading

In recent years, many companies have experienced a shortage of skilled manpower. This situation often results in the need to intensify recruitment and the retention of job placement agencies or head-hunters in order to find the best candidates. However, employers must be aware that this method of recruiting candidates can have consequences on the length of notice that must be provided in the event of a termination of employment without a serious reason.

Article 2091 of the Civil Code of Québec (the "C.C.Q.") entitles either party to terminate a contract of employment of indeterminate term without a serious reason, subject to the obligation to provide reasonable notice of termination or an indemnity in lieu thereof.

Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 2091 C.C.Q., the notice of termination must be reasonable and must take into account, in particular, the nature of the employment, the special circumstances in which it is carried out and the duration of employment.  In addition to these factors, other criteria recognized by case law must be considered, such as the intention of the parties at the time of hiring, the adverse conditions of the labour market, the employer's good faith, the employee's age, education, training, difficulty in finding comparable employment, his or her family responsibilities, medical condition as well as other special circumstances such as the fact that the employee was solicited away from a stable employment to join the company.

Continue Reading