DSF is Recognized in Best Lawyers 2024 Edition Devry Smith Frank LLP (DSF) is proud to announce that we have been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for the 2024 Edition with 7 of our lawyers ranked across various practice areas. The lawyers being recognized are listed below: David Lavkulik – Personal Injury Litigation Diana L. Solomon – Family Law George O. Frank – Personal Injury Litigation Jennifer K. Howard – Family Law Marc G. Spivak – Personal Injury Litigation Marty Rabinovitch – Labour and Employment Law – Recognized for the first time in 2024 edition of Best Lawyers Todd E. Slonim – Family Law We are grateful for this recognition and will continue to strive to provide the best service for our clients. Best Lawyers is the legal profession’s oldest peer-review publication and garners immense respect as the recognition signifies peer approval. Lists of outstanding lawyers arise from thorough evaluations where legal experts confidentially evaluate their colleagues. For over 40 years, this top peer-review publication acknowledges leading attorneys across more than 100 practice areas, chosen for outstanding feedback. “Lawyer of the Year” is awarded to one attorney in each practice area and metropolitan area, further amplifying its significance. Please visit their website for more details: www.bestlawyers.com By AlyssaBlog, Employment Law, Family Law, Labour Law, Personal Injury, UncategorizedAugust 25, 2023August 25, 2023
Ontario Court of Appeal Finds Termination Clause Unenforceable Due to Illegal Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Clauses Henderson v Slavkin et al, 2022 ONSC 2964 In 2015, Rose Henderson, a receptionist at a dental office, was asked by her employers to sign a new employment contract. The contract contained a provision limiting her entitlements only to those under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”)[1]. While the termination clause itself did not raise concern, the contract’s confidentiality clause and the conflict of interest clause provided that a failure to comply with these clauses would constitute cause for termination without notice or compensation in lieu of notice.[2] Henderson challenged the enforceability of these provisions, arguing that the provisions were contrary to the ESA. As a result of her challenge, she was (wrongfully) terminated. Henderson’s former employers contended that the contract was neither illegal nor unconscionable and that Henderson’s entitlements pursuant to the ESA were fully satisfied. Ultimately, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the confidential information and conflict of interest provisions within the contract indeed violated the ESA and as a result, eighteen (18) months’ reasonable notice was owing to Henderson. The takeaway from Henderson is that a single contractual clause which violates the ESA with respect to termination can threaten the enforceability of that provision. This reinforces and goes beyond the Ontario Court of Appeal’s earlier ruling in Waksdale v Swegon North America Inc.[3] that a contract’s termination provisions must be read as a whole. To the effect that if any aspect of the termination clause is found to contravene the ESA, the entire clause will be rendered null and void for all purposes. Henderson provides that any agreement or policy that states that a breach of that policy will lead to termination without compensation could invalidate any other enforceable termination clause. The law will continue to evolve in response to these developments. Background In Waksdale, the Court of Appeal’s decision revolutionized employment law by ruling that the “without cause” termination provisions in employment contracts can be legally unenforceable if the wording of any other termination provisions elsewhere in that same contract contravene any aspect of the ESA or its regulations. The Court further stated that the severability clause could not save provisions of a contract that have been made void by statute.[4] As the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave, Waksdale is the binding authority in Ontario for interpreting the validity of an employment agreement. Subsequent decisions including Gracias v. Dr. David Walt Dentistry[5] and Rahman v. Cannon Design Architecture Inc[6] reference the Waksdale ruling that an invalid just cause provision renders other termination provisions unenforceable. Waksdale provides its analysis using the just cause standard but it is important to note the difference between the just cause standard and wilful misconduct in employment law. In order to be disentitled from ESA entitlements under the “wilful misconduct” standard in the Regulations, the employee must do something deliberately, knowing that they are doing something wrong.[7] This test is higher than the test for “just cause”: the employer must demonstrate that the employee purposefully engaged in conduct that he or she knew to be serious misconduct.[8] Careless, thoughtless, or inadvertent conduct would not meet this standard.[9] Differentiating between these standards is crucial in determining whether an employee was terminated for just cause or for wilful misconduct. The Case of Henderson v. Slavkin et al Henderson reinforces the reasoning behind Waksdale. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the contract’s provisions relating to confidential information and conflict of interest violated the ESA. The Court outlined the basic principles forming the framework for the determination of the enforcement of a termination clause: Employees have less bargaining power than employers when employment agreements are made; Employees are likely unfamiliar with employment standards in the ESA and thus are unlikely to challenge termination clauses; The ESA is remedial legislation, and courts should therefore favour interpretations of the ESA that encourage employers to comply with the minimum requirements of the Act, and extend its protection to employees; The ESA should be interpreted in a way that encourages employers to draft agreements which comply with the ESA; A termination clause will rebut the presumption of reasonable notice only if its wording is clear, since employees are entitled to know at the beginning of an employment relationship what their employment will be at the end of their employment; and Courts should prefer an interpretation of the termination clause that gives the greater benefit to the employee.[10] Where an employment agreement is not consistent with the ESA, the agreement becomes invalid and the terminated employee becomes entitled to common law damages.[11] The Court found that the clause in the conflict of interest and confidential information provisions that provided that a failure to comply would constitute cause for termination without notice or compensation in lieu of notice was unenforceable. For both of these provisions, what constitutes a breach is overly broad and ambiguous to the extent that it exceeds the concept of wilful misconduct under the ESA.[12] The Court rejected the employers’ argument that the provisions only apply to wilful misconduct or wilful neglect of duty as the Court was unable to conclude that that was the case based on the wording of the provisions.[13] As the clauses were not in compliance with the ESA, the employment contract was invalidated. Conclusion The Court’s decision in Henderson should be a cautionary lesson for employers. It holds that a single ESA-violating clause that deals with termination within an employment contract can threaten the enforceability of a termination provision. Employers should review the provisions together, in addition to any employment policies that government termination of employment, to ensure that the employment provisions do not offend the ESA. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique, and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situations and needs.” This blog was co-authored by student-at-law, Abby Leung. [1] SO 2000, c. 41. [2] Henderson v Slavkin et al., 2022 ONSC 2964 at para 13. [3] 2020 ONCA 391. [4] Ibid, para 14. [5] 2022 ONSC 2967. [6] 2022 ONCA 451. [7] Render v ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited, 2022 ONCA 310 at para 79. [8] Ibid. [9] Ibid. [10] Wood v Fred Deeley Imports Ltd, 2017 ONCA 158 at para 28. [11] 2022 ONSC 2964 at para 26. [12] Ibid at para 38. [13] Ibid. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Labour LawSeptember 21, 2022June 10, 2023
Waksdale Prevails: Ontario Court of Appeal Overturns Enforceability of Illegal Termination Provisions in Rahman In Rahman v Cannon Design Architecture Inc, 2022 ONCA 451, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently overturned a lower court decision which upheld an otherwise illegal termination provision because the employee sought legal advice prior to signing her employment contract. A divergent approach to the one taken in Waksdale v Swegon North America Inc, 2020 ONCA 391. The Waksdale Decision On June 17, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Waksdale ruled that a contract’s termination provisions must be read as a whole, to the effect that if any aspect of the termination clause is found to contravene the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”), the entire clause will be rendered null and void for all purposes, despite the existence of a severability clause. The Case of Rahman Facts Farah Rahman was employed by Cannon Design Architecture Inc. (“CDAI”) as a Senior Architect, Principal and Office Practice Leader for over four years. She was given four weeks of base salary when her employment was terminated, without notice or cause. Prior to the commencement of her employment, Rahman sought independent legal advice and negotiated the terms of her employment agreement, including the termination provisions. With the help of legal counsel, Rahman negotiated “material improvements” to the terms of her severance package under her contract. Rahman signed two employment contracts with distinct termination provisions. The first was an “Offer Letter” asking Ms. Rahman to join CannonDesign, a subsidiary company wholly owned by CDAI, as a “Principal”. The second was an “Officer Agreement” between The Cannon Corporation (a corporate entity separate from CannonDesign and CDAI) and Ms. Rahman, to become Cannon Corporation’s Senior Vice President and Principal Officer. The Offer Letter referred to the Officer Agreement, stating that the latter also formed the basis of her employment. It provided that in the event of a conflict between it and the Officer Agreement, the Offer Letter would govern. After her dismissal, Rahman brought an action for wrongful dismissal. She argued that, in accordance with the decision in Waksdale, the termination provisions of the employment agreement were not enforceable because the “just cause” provision would allow for termination without notice in situations in which the ESA still required notice to terminate an employment contract. The termination provision: “CannonDesign maintains the right to terminate your employment at any time and without notice or payment in lieu thereof if you engage in conduct that constitutes just cause for summary dismissal.” Rahman argued that according to Ontario Regulation 288/01, an employee can be terminated without notice only where they have been “guilty of wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty that is not trivial and has not been condoned by the employer”— a standard Rahman argued was higher than “just cause” at common law. In addition, Rahman argued that the provisions of the initial “Officer’s Agreement” that had been sent to her before the employment agreement violated the ESA. The Officer’s Agreement and the employment agreement contained different termination provisions, and Rahman had not negotiated the Officer’s Agreement’s provisions. Ontario Superior Court of Justice The motion judge found that the contractual provision in the employment agreement which denied entitlements upon termination for just cause did not amount to an attempt to contract out of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 because the employer and employee had equal bargaining power in negotiating the employment agreement. The basis for the motion judge’s decision was that he found Rahman to be “reasonably sophisticated” as she received independent legal advice prior to entering into the contract. The Court found the termination provision to be valid and enforceable. The Court of Appeal On Appeal, the question before the Court was whether the motion judge erred in concluding that the termination provisions of the employment contracts govern the termination of her employment. Justice Gilese reasoned: [24] In my view, the motion judge erred in law when he allowed considerations of Ms. Rahman’s sophistication and access to independent legal advice, coupled with the parties’ subjective intention to not contravene the ESA, to override the plain language in the termination provisions in the Employment Contracts. By allowing subjective considerations to distort and override the wording of those provisions, the motion judge committed an extricable error of law reviewable on a correctness standard: Amberber v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2018 ONCA 571, 424 D.L.R. (4th) 169, at para. 65. It is the wording of a termination provision which determines whether it contravenes the ESA – even compliance with ESA obligations on termination does not have the effect of saving a termination provision that violates the ESA: Wood v. Fred Deeley Imports Ltd., 2017 ONCA 158, 134 O.R. (3d) 481, at paras. 43-44. [28] The wilful misconduct standard requires evidence that the employee was “being bad on purpose”: Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited, 2022 ONCA 310, at para. 79, citing Plester v. Polyone Canada Inc., 2011 ONSC 6068, 2012 C.L.L.C. 210-022, aff’d 2013 ONCA 47, 2013 C.L.L.C. 210-015. For example, in Oosterbosch v. FAG Aerospace Inc., 2011 ONSC 1538, 2011 C.L.L.C. 210-019, the court awarded damages for ESA notice and severance after holding that the employer had just cause to terminate the employee for persistent carelessness that did not meet the wilful misconduct standard. [29] There is nothing in the Operative Just Cause Provision that limits its scope to just cause terminations for wilful misconduct. In its plain wording, the Operative Just Cause Provision gives CannonDesign the right to terminate Ms. Rahman’s employment without notice or payment, for conduct that constitutes just cause alone. That means the Operative Just Clause Provision contravenes the ESA and s. 5 renders it void. Section 5 provides that no employer shall contract out of an employment standard and any such contracting out is void. The Court of Appeal found that the plain wording of the termination provision ran afoul of the ESA and was therefore void and unenforceable. The Court of Appeal ruled that the motion judge erred at law in considering the former employee’s “sophistication and access to independent legal advice” and used those factors, among others, to “override the plain language” in the termination provisions. Key Takeaways When the Rahman decision was released last year, it was found to be a major win in favour of employers. By reversing the decision, the Court of Appeal has upheld the Waksdale decision. It reinforces that termination provisions should be read together, in their plain wording, when assessing their validity and enforceability. The ever-changing legal landscape of employment law in Ontario should encourage employers to have their employment contracts regularly reviewed by a lawyer to ensure they are compliant with statutory requirements for enforceability purposes and to avoid expensive litigation. To incentivize employees to sign the new agreements with updated termination provisions, employers may provide consideration to employees in the form of a signing bonus, salary increase, or other incentives. If you have any questions regarding termination provisions and updating employment contracts, please contact one of our employment lawyers or email info@devrylaw.ca to book a consultation. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique, and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situations and needs.” This blog was co-authored by Owais Hashmi* Sources [1] Rahman v Cannon Design Architecture Inc, 2022 ONCA 451 [2] Waksdale v Swegon North America Inc, 2020 ONCA 391. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Labour LawJuly 19, 2022October 27, 2023
Canada Labour Code Adjudicator Awards Costs in Unjust Dismissal Case This blog is co-written by our former articling student, Janet Son. In P.D. and The Bank of Nova Scotia, Re, 2020 CarswellNat 640, Adjudicator Kaufman considered the issue of whether the Canada Labour Code (the “Code”) authorized adjudicators to award costs in unjust dismissal cases. The complainant P.D. worked as a customer service representative at the Bank of Nova Scotia (the “employer”). She was dismissed due to allegations that she misappropriated $1,000.00 of the Bank’s funds and attempted to cover up the theft while serving customer Mr. X. Counsel for the employer argued that there were no grounds under the Code for a costs award in an unjust dismissal claim, citing Canadian Human Rights Commission and Mowat v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 S.C.C. 53 (CanLII) (“Mowat”). Employer’s counsel argued since “costs” is a legal term of art, if Parliament intended to confer the authority to award costs then it would have been explicitly stated in the legislation. However, Adjudicator Kaufman found that Mowat was decided specifically in the context of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the absence of a specific authority to award costs should not be generalized to other administrative bodies. Adjudicator Kaufman reviewed the post-Mowat decision of Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., 2016 SCC 29 (CanLII) and found that the Justices of the Supreme Court confirmed that as part of the remedial scheme set out in section 242(4) of the Code, adjudicators have the authority to award costs. The applicable provision being: “Unjust dismissal (4) If the Board decides under subsection (3) that a person has been unjustly dismissed, the Board may, by order, require the employer who dismissed the person to (a) pay the person compensation not exceeding the amount of money that is equivalent to the remuneration that would, but for the dismissal, have been paid by the employer to the person; (b) reinstate the person in his employ; and (c) do any other like thing that it is equitable to require the employer to do in order to remedy or counteract any consequence of the dismissal.” Adjudicator Kaufman concluded that the wording “do any like thing that is equitable…” conferred a broad discretion for adjudicators to award costs as is appropriate. As such she applied the factors set out in Rule 400 of the Federal Court Rules, to determine a costs award. The appropriate scale of costs was also canvassed, based on the following factors: adjudication is a fact-finding process, the onus is on the employer to establish just cause for dismissal on a balance of probabilities if just cause is not proven the employer is at risk of compensating the complainant for their legal costs, and the purpose of costs is not to punish the employer but to “make whole” the complainant that spent resources to test their unjust dismissal. Adjudicator Kaufman concluded that partial indemnity costs would be insufficient since P.D. had “done little to contribute to the costs she incurred, other than to have been misjudged by the employer.” As a result she awarded substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $90,466.40. Key Takeaway: Employees under the Code may have an increased chance of being awarded substantial indemnity costs in the adjudication of their matter as compared to commencing a wrongful dismissal claim at the Superior Court where costs awards are typically made at the partial indemnity rate. If you have more questions about your wrongful dismissal, contact employment lawyer Marty Rabinovitch at 416-446-5826 or at marty.rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, COVID-19, Labour LawMay 26, 2020September 30, 2020
Bill 66: Changes to the Employment Standards and Labour Relations Acts Bill 66, which received royal assent on April 3rd, 2019, changes the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and the Labour Relations Act (LRA). Workplaces that are covered by the ESA should take note that: Posting requirements are no more: Employers are no longer required to display a poster in the workplace delineating the ESA’s applicable regulations and rules. However, employers remain obligated to provide a poster delineating ESA rules and regulations to their employees. Agreements extending the ESA overtime limit no longer require approval: Employers no longer need to apply for approval to make agreements allowing their employees to exceed 48 hours of work in a work week. As long as there has been an agreement between the employer and the employee extending the amount of hours the employee can work, employers are not violating the ESA. Overtime-averaging agreements no longer require approval: Employers no longer need to apply for approval to make an agreement with an employee to average their employee’s hours of work for the purpose of determining entitlements to overtime pay. Note, however, that the employee’s hours may be averaged in accordance with the terms of an averaging agreement only if the overtime period in the agreement does not exceed four weeks. Workplaces that are covered by the LRA should take note that: The list of non-construction employers has been expanded: municipalities, local boards, school boards, local housing corporations, hospitals, Ontario colleges and universities now no longer apply to the LRA’s rules with respect to construction employees. Employers listed under this new provision may opt-out, but only if: (1) A trade union represents employees of the employer who are employed, or may be employed, in the construction industry as of April 3, 2019; (2) The application must be made by a person with authority to bind the employer; and (3) The election must be filed with the Minister of Labour within three months of April 3, 2019. If you would like more information about these amendments, or would like legal advice to ensure your place of work follows these new requirements, please contact experienced employment lawyer Marty Rabinovitch of Devry Smith Frank LLP at 416-446-5826 or marty.rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Labour LawMay 24, 2019September 30, 2020
Employment Bill 148 is Being Scrapped…But Which Parts Are Uncertain Last week Doug Ford announced that he was halting the implementation of a $15 per hour minimum wage in Ontario but it looks like he is seeking to additionally roll back other employment laws that have already come into force. Yesterday, October 2, 2018, Doug Ford announced in the Ontario legislature that he was going to scrap Bill 148, a bill enacted by the previous Liberal government (after a broad consultation) that increased protections for workers in an effort to alleviate the impacts of precarious work (see our previous blogs on Bill 148). Bill 148 introduced many new provisions to both Ontario’s Employment Standards Act and Ontario’s unionized Labour Relations Act. Some of the new provisions included a presumption that a worker is automatically an employee unless it is proven otherwise (an employee classification gets the most protection under labour and employment legislation), mandated scheduling provisions including the expansion of the “3 hour rule” (i.e. an employee gets paid for three hours of work if his/her shift is cancelled less than 48 hours before he or she was to commence working), equal pay for equal work laws between full and part-time workers, personal emergency leave provisions (10 days of emergency leave absences with 2 days of paid leave), and increased regulation on temporary help agencies. However, whether Bill 148 is going to be axed in its entirety or in a piecemeal fashion remains to be seen. Doug Ford’s statements in the legislature were incredibly broad, saying “We’re getting rid of Bill 148. We’re going to make sure we protect the front-line workers because 60,000 people lost their jobs under Bill 148 … We’re going to make sure we tell the world Ontario is open for business. We’re going to make sure we’re competitive around the world.” After Question Period, reporters swarmed Jim Wilson, Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, with respect to Ford’s comments. Wilson scaled back Ford’s comments, stating that the government was still reviewing Bill 148 and a final decision had yet to be made. Wilson made statements that despite the Conservative government voting against the Bill when the Liberals introduced it, they were likely going to keep the $14 an hour minimum wage and other sections. Devry Smith Frank LLP will be monitoring the province’s efforts to scrap Bill 148. It is important to contact a labour and employment law lawyer to keep apprised of recent legislative developments and get advice on how it will impact your business or personal contracts. If you need assistance with labour and employment laws please contact one of our employment lawyers. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Labour LawOctober 10, 2018March 27, 2024
Colleges and Faculty to Continue Contract Discussion to Avoid Strike In a previous blog post, we discuss the call for a strike that Ontario’s colleges faculty members will vote for in the fall, after rejecting a 7.5% wage hike offered by the Ontario government. Now, they are back to negotiating after the Thanksgiving weekend. Ontario’s colleges are back at the bargaining table today, as the strike deadline of October 15th approaches. The talks have been put on hiatus at the end of September after no progress was made. The union represents “full-time professors as well as “partial load” instructors who teach between seven and 12 hours a week, as well as college counsellors and librarians,” and the last offer that was received from the colleges provided a 7.5 per cent raise over four years, as well as improvements to benefits and a lump-sum payment which they did not accept. CEO of the college council, Don Sinclair, has reassured students that the colleges are concerned and will provide updates as they become available. In this case, the government has indicated that, before any strike vote, that the faculty union members vote on the last offer they have received. Employers usually have this right, stored under s. 42 of the Labour Relations Act, which says: (1) Before or after the commencement of a strike or lock-out, the employer of the employees in the affected bargaining unit may request that a vote of the employees be taken as to the acceptance or rejection of the offer of the employer last received by the trade union in respect of all matters remaining in dispute between the parties and the Minister shall, and in the construction industry the Minister may, on the terms that he or she considers necessary direct that a vote of the employees to accept or reject the offer be held and thereafter no further such request shall be made. The ability for the employer to call for a vote is a tactic of last resort—and can only be done once. In fact, in 2010, when the current collective agreement was signed, colleges used s. 42 to call for a vote, which approved the agreement with a slim majority. Only time will tell to see if this strategy will pay off for a second time, or if both parties will be forced to return to the bargaining table. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Labour LawOctober 10, 2017June 18, 2020
Toronto Zoo Strike Costs Toronto $4 Million Last spring, the Toronto Zoo saw a strike over wages for its workers, which caused the Zoo to remain closed for 5 weeks while an agreement was reached. The agreement gave the workers a 1.25-per-cent wage hike in each of the four years of their contracts and the non-union staff will be closely watched as the Zoo board will decide on what they will receive as a result. Figures were released in a report on attendance and revenue which revealed: The Zoo expected 218,012 visitors Net forecast loss of $3.99 million After they re-opened, they still saw a decrease in attendance of 65,125 due to cancellations of group trips and camps. With the addition of the pandas, attendance hit 1.3 million and is expected to dip once they are transported to Calgary. Overall, August attendance levels were below target, but, still above 2016 levels with a rebound happening in September. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Labour LawOctober 4, 2017June 18, 2020
Recycling Plant to Pay $1.33M in Fines, Back Wages A recycling plant in North York has been employing temp-workers for years at a low-wage and has been ordered to pay $1.33M in fines and back pay to workers. Canada Fibers Ltd. has violated the City of Toronto’s fair wage policy after a two year investigation revealed they were paying workers below the agreed upon rates. Canada Fibers has two, seven-year contract with the city to process blue bin recyclables, and within those contracts included that all employees, including temp workers, will be paid $12.34 an hour with pay increases tied to inflation. The contracts with the city are worth more than $264 million. After a series of reports by The Star on a worker who had been working for years at minimum wage with the company, $11 an hour at the time, an investigation was launched in 2015 into the company which found that 1,600 workers were owed money due to low wages. The investigation was conducted over two years by the city’s Fair Wage Office. It also found that Canada Fibers uses 5 different temp agencies to staff their facilities. Now, Canada Fibers has agreed to pay approximately $1.2M in good faith payments to employees and a $135,000 administration fee to the City of Toronto. Such an investigation highlights how important Bill 148 is to provide equal work for equal pay to temp agency workers and part time workers, as improvements are needed in the enforcement of this. Part time and temp workers who do the same work as their full time counterparts deserve the same treatment and pay. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Labour LawSeptember 26, 2017June 18, 2020
Ontario Legislature Returns From Summer Break – Labour & Marijuana to be Main Focus Queen’s Park resumes today after summer break, with much to keep them busy this fall. They will focus on the labour law changes and marijuana legalization which is set for July of next year. In addition to these two major topics, they are also resuming in the midst of two Liberal trials, one of which is the Election Act bribery trial where Kathleen Wynne has been called as a witness. The Election Act bribery charges stem from a 2015 by-election and mischief and the breach of trust trial related to the cancellation of two gas plants before the 2011 election. The labour bill and the introduction of increased minimum wage by 2019, equal pay for part-time workers, more vacation days and personal emergency leave will go through a second reading before the second round of committee hearings. Business groups are against the increase, saying that it is “too much o absorb that quickly,” and they continue to press for amendments to the bill. Second on the docket is the legalization of marijuana and the control of the sale of it, after the announcement that the LCBO will operate all 150 stores that will open in the next couple of years. This fall will be busy for our government, as there are other policies that will be discussed aside from the labour law changes and legalization of pot, such as: Long-term energy plan Police oversight legislation Legislation to create new northern ridings Updated Police Services Act Ticket sales and resale legislation Legislation to create safe zones around abortion clinics As updates become available to the developments in Queen’s Park please check back to our blog for more information on these stories. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Labour LawSeptember 11, 2017June 18, 2020
