News & Events

Schweizer v. The Corporation of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (“Schweizer v. Whitchurch-Stouffville”), provides procedural reminders with respect to the enforcement of settlements entered into in matters before the Human Rights Tribunal (“HRTO”) of Ontario. The applicant, a former employee of the respondent, alleged discrimination with respect to her employment.  The parties entered into Minutes of

Facts The complaining Employee was employed as a housekeeper at a hotel in Niagara Falls, Ontario where she was allegedly harassed and taunted by her colleagues and supervisor for having an unpleasant odour and for other matters related to a diagnosed medical condition. While still working at the hotel, the Employee filed a human rights

Facts The complaining Employee was employed as a housekeeper at a hotel in Niagara Falls, Ontario where she was allegedly harassed and taunted by her colleagues and supervisor for having an unpleasant odour and for other matters related to a diagnosed medical condition. While still working at the hotel, the Employee filed a human rights

In June 2020, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favour of an applicant who was the victim of a racial slur during the course of being served at a local pizza franchise. The applicant had just ordered lunch with his friends from high school when one member of the group accidentally cracked a window

On October 16, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Court”) ruled that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) pension plan breaches section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) on the ground of sex and perpetuates discrimination against women by precluding members who participate in job-sharing arrangements from purchasing full-time pension

On October 16, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Court”) ruled that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) pension plan breaches section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) on the ground of sex and perpetuates discrimination against women by precluding members who participate in job-sharing arrangements from purchasing full-time pension

It has been a tumultuous year in the land of employment law in Canada.  What had become viewed as rock solid termination provisions began to get thrown out at the end of 2019 in the Court of Appeal decision in Andros v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc.  and 2020 has seen several other decisions, including Waksdale

On March 17, 2020, the Government of Ontario declared a provincial state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequent workplace closures and public health recommendations instantly moved a significant number of businesses online, including health care providers and organizations that use and disclose personal health information. The Government of Ontario reacted to this

In our June 3, 2020 Blog titled O. Reg. 228/20- Ontario Government Effort to Avoid Deemed Terminations and the Onslaught of Constructive Dismissal Claims Under the ESA, we provided you with details of a critical amendment to the Employment Standards Act, 2000(“ESA“),  which prevented temporary layoffs due to COVID-19 from automatically becoming a permanent job

Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc.: Unenforceable “For Cause” Termination Provisions Render “Without Cause” Termination Provisions Null and Void Over the past few years, the Ontario Court of Appeal has released a number of decisions considering the enforceability of termination provisions. For the most part, the recent jurisprudence has focused on the necessary wording and