Online, there is a bunch of recent discussions about Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI is not new. It has been around for decades. However, the recent discussion about AI tends to center around Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 which was developed by ChatGPT.
LLMs are not sentient. LLMs work thanks to extensive training of an algorithm through massive amounts of data so it can create sentences that appear like coherent responses to prompts. Essentially, the LLM is trying to come up with words that it is programmed to believe work together without understanding the meaning of words in a way that a regular human does.
Despite AI companies claiming that their AI successfully passed the barrister exam, AI is no replacement for an employment lawyer. As this blog will show, using AI is much more likely to bring legal issues than help solve legal issues.
AI is not a legal research tool. It cannot help you prepare arguments to be used in front of a court like a lawyer can. A family lawyer from British Columbia learned this the hard way. In Zhang v Chen, (2024 BCSC 285) Ms. Ke was retained as Mr. Chen’s council. Ms. Ke used ChatGPT to help her find cases to support her notice of application. At first glance, the two “case summaries” produced by ChatGPT appeared to be from strong cited cases that could support her legal argument. If Ms. Ke checked a real legal research site like CanLii and ensured that the summaries were accurate, she would have learnt that the citations led to completely different cases. This is because ChatGPT made up these cases. The court noted that LLMs tend to have legal hallucinations. In a study that the court cited, it found that the largest LLMs made up legal information 69% to 88% of the time.
Submitting fake cases is equivalent to lying to the court. The judge in Zhang v Chen stated that citing fake cases in the court is “an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court. Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice.” (para 29). Making false statements in court has consequences. Though the court did not award special costs against Ms. Ke, as she did not intend to deceive, it did hold her personally liable for half of the opposing council’s costs for the four days of trial.
AI cannot write a valid and enforceable employment contract. I know this because, in my free time, I asked ChatGPT to write me an employment contract for a fourth-grade teacher. It provided me with a template where if I entered the personal information of the fictional teacher I would have a contract, ready to sign. Despite its professional appearance, ChatGPT’s contract is not enforceable as it violates the Employment Standards Act (ESA) and could cause more problems than it is worth.
ChatGPT gave me a fixed-term employment contract. My prompt did not ask for a fixed-term employment contract. We have already written about the dangers of fixed-term contracts on this blog. One of the more notable dangers in this situation is if the employer found that the fictional fourth-grade teacher was not a right fit early in the employment relationship, they would have to pay out the rest of the fixed-term employment contract.
ChatGPT’s termination clause would easily be dismissed by a judge and found unenforceable. It states that:
There are three elements to this termination clause that make it invalid. First, it refers to “cause,” which is not found in the ESA and suggests that the intent of the contract is to be bound by common law. Second, it states that the school can terminate the agreement immediately for cause, which is a stricter standard than what’s permitted under Regulation 288/01 to the ESA, which only permits termination without notice when the employee is “guilty of wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty that is not trivial and has not been condoned by the employer.” Third, it permits the employer to terminate the agreement “at any time” which the recent decision in Dufault v The Corporation of the Township of Ignace (2024 ONSC 1029) found to be invalid language, as there are certain circumstances when an employer cannot terminate an employee such as when they return to work from an ESA-permitted leave. It’s also worth noting that if this was not a termination clause for a one year fixed-term employment contract, it would have also been invalid for providing less notice than what is required under the ESA for employees who work for five or more years. Regardless, since this termination clause is invalid, if an employer attempted to rely on it, they would be liable for the remainder of the fixed-term contract, potentially costing them thousands of dollars.
Using AI and LLMs to provide you with legal advice and employment documents could result in costly damages and destroy your side of an employment law case. You could save money and get sound legal advice by contacting an employment law firm. At Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation we have employment lawyers with over 40 years of combined legal experience and who are well versed in recent employment law developments. We will not make the above-noted mistakes that AI has been proven to make. To contact one of our employment lawyers please call us at 705-268-6492 or email us at info@sdlawtimmins.com.
As a school board, adapting to the constantly evolving demands of your institution and employees can be challenging. Ensuring everyone is on the same page and complying with relevant legislation is a crucial responsibility.
At %COMPANY% we provide customized human resources training services that can be designed to fit your workplace. With our help, you and your educational staff can get customized training that includes material on things from human rights training to progressive discipline training and much more.
At %COMPANY%, we’ve developed human resources training that can help School Boards and Education Authorities understand the employment law issues that they may face in the education industry.
Our custom HR training can be held in person or virtually, and it is an excellent resource for helping upper management understand their employment law obligations. We consider your particular institutional environment and modify our seminars to include personalized training concerning your workplace policies and collective agreement, if any.
Drawing on recent cases affecting schools, teachers, and educational professionals, we help you and your team to tackle issues on a number of complex employment law matters. We try to ensure you have an understanding the legislative landscape to keep your organization operating smoothly.
Our training can be customized so you can learn about the following, in detail, in the context of the education industry:
Beyond the materials themselves, we also cater our delivery method to accommodate your needs. We prefer delivering our seminars in person to build strong connections with the participants, but we also offer the training through live virtual sessions to accommodate your busy schedule.
At %COMPANY%, we leverage decades of combined legal experience and knowledge to provide exceptional HR training. Our legal team has helped numerous education authorities and school boards adapt to changing regulations, and we’re passionate about developing robust training that prepare you to face employment law-related challenges.
If you’re interested in learning more about our training packages or scheduling a consultation with our legal team, please call us at %PHONE1% or email us at learning@sdlawtimmins.com.
In Ontario, courts are carefully scrutinizing termination clauses in employment contracts. Based on recent cases, if even one part of a termination clause violates the Employment Standards Act (ESA) or Regulation 288/01 to the ESA, the entire termination clause cannot be enforced. It does not matter whether you used or intended to use the clause that violates the ESA or not.
These cases limiting the applicability of termination clauses in employment contracts should be very concerning for those who provide their employees with fixed-term employment contracts. We have a blog on the dangers of fixed-term contracts. As noted in that blog, if a fixed-term employment contract ends early and the termination provision is not enforceable, then the employer will have to pay out the remaining amount of the fixed-term contract. In the recent decision, Dufault v The Corporation of the Township of Ignace (2024 ONSC 1029) the employer learnt this lesson the hard way.
In Dufault v The Corporation of the Township of Ignace (Dufault), Karen Dufault worked as a Youth Engagement Coordinator for the Town of Ignace. They agreed to a fixed-term employment contract beginning on November 24, 2022, and ending on December 31, 2024. On January 26, 2023, Ms. Dufault was terminated effective immediately on a without cause basis. The town provided Ms. Dufault with two weeks of pay in lieu of notice and continued her benefits for two weeks, relying on the without cause termination provision in the fixed-term employment contract. Ms. Dufault sued the town for the remainder of her fixed-term contract.
The judge found that the termination provisions were not enforceable. The court noted that its analysis of the termination clause needs to consider the wording at the time when the contract was signed and not at the time of dismissal. It noted that the termination clause was invalid due to the use of the term of “for cause” as the ESA and its regulations do not refer to “for cause.” This implies that the termination was being considered in a common law context. The for cause termination clause also exceeded the extent that Regulation 288/01 to the ESA permits employers to terminate without providing notice with the judge finding that the “failure to perform services” is not the same as wilful misconduct. The judge also found that the without cause termination provision was invalid. The judge noted that offering weeks of pay based on the base salary is less than offering weeks of pay based on the regular wages, as required by the ESA. The employer also noted that the without cause termination clause ran afoul of the ESA by stating that the employer can “at any time” terminate the employee, as the employer’s right to terminate is not absolute, such as in cases of reprisal where the employee tried to claim an ESA right. Since the termination provisions were invalid, the employee was entitled to the balance of the fixed-term contract, which the judge calculated to be $157,071.57.
The ultimate decision in Dufault is not surprising. Courts have been carefully scrutinizing termination clauses and invalidating such clauses if they are not compliant with the ESA. Based on past decisions in the last couple of years, it is not surprising that the termination clause was found to be invalid. It is also not surprising that the employer had to pay out the balance of the fixed-term contract. It is well established by courts that employers who terminate an employee without cause must pay out the remainder of the fixed-term contract.
What is novel about this case is the judge’s comment that the use of the term “at any time” to terminate the employee is contrary to the ESA due to certain circumstances where an employer does not have discretion to terminate an employee. Employers should be aware of this, as such language may be in their employee’s employment contract. With decisions changing what is an enforceable termination clause, employers should consider reviewing their employment agreements often.
At Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation we can help both employers and employees. With recently terminated employees, we can review your employment contract and determine whether you are entitled to more than what is provided in the termination agreement. With employers, we can review your employment contracts and help create a more enforceable termination clause. To speak to one of our employment lawyers, please call us at 705-268-6492 or email us at info@sdlawtimmins.com.
Employees can get arrested and charged for crimes that they committed inside and outside of the workplace. Such a situation already puts an employer in an awkward position. However, depending on the severity of the crime, the employee may be sentenced to prison. At that point, the employer will be without the employee for the duration of the employee’s incarceration, which can fluctuate based on their ability to get parole.
Often employer’s gut reaction upon hearing that their employee has been arrested or will be incarcerated is to terminate their employment. This can be a mistake. It is better to first meet with an employment lawyer who can guide you through your legal responsibilities. As the following case will show, dealing with an employee who is to be incarcerated can be legally complicated.
In Adam West v J. Dowswell Farms Ltd., Adam West was appealing the decision of an Employment Standards Officer who decided to not grant an order to pay his notice entitlements under the Employment Standards Act (ESA). In this case, Mr. West worked for the employer as a Farm Manager. Mr. West was arrested and charged with a criminal offence. Mr. West advised the employer about his arrest but did not lose any time from work due to the criminal proceedings. Mr. West was eventually convicted and sentenced to 18 months in custody. After an unsuccessful appeal, Mr. West advised his employer that he was required to surrender to police to begin his sentence on January 27, 2023. He did not request a leave of absence. Mr. West’s sister then began corresponding with the employer on Mr. West’s behalf. She informed the employer, on the day Mr. West surrendered to police, that Mr. West would be incarcerated for 18 months, but that sentence could reduced to 6 months if he is granted parole. The employer decided to terminate Mr. West’s employment on January 28, 2023, without providing him pay in lieu of notice. Mr. West was released on March 13, 2023, on bail pending his further appeal. However, the employer had already hired a replacement employee as Mr. West’s job needed to be done in-person.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board held a de novo hearing and found that Mr. West was not entitled to pay in lieu of notice. The Board noted that Regulation 288/01, provides exemptions to the requirement to give notice or pay in lieu of notice. It specifically highlighted section 2(1) 4 of Regulation 288/01 which provides an exception to providing notice or pay in lieu of notice when “An employee whose contract of employment has become impossible to perform or has been frustrated by a fortuitous or unforeseeable event or circumstance.” The Board found that Mr. West’s incarceration made his job “impossible to perform” as he was required to report daily to the employer’s farm, which frustrated his employment contract. The Board also noted that Mr. West also did not seek or get leave allowing him to be absent for the duration of his incarceration. Thus, Mr. West’s application was dismissed.
This case establishes that the employer may be able to claim that the employment contract is frustrated when the employee becomes incarcerated. This is because criminal convictions are not protected under Ontario’s Human Rights Code and employers are not obliged to grant leave for an employee who will be incarcerated. However, this does not mean that the inability to come to work frustrates the employment contract in all circumstances. For example, both the Employment Standards Act (ESA) and Ontario’s Human Rights Code contemplate the ability of an employee to take parental leave to take care of a newly born child, which the employer must accommodate.
Although we are not a criminal law firm, we do have experience helping employers who have an employee who got arrested. We can provide tailored advice that helps you deal with the complicated process that comes when an employee is involved with the criminal justice system. To speak to one of our employment lawyers, please call us at 705-268-6492 or email us at info@sdlawtimmins.com.
When an employment contract is frustrated, an employer is exempt from providing the employee with notice or pay in lieu of notice. An employment contract will be frustrated when a situation arises, through no fault of the parties involved, that is not provided for in the contract and renders the performance of the parties’ obligations under the contract into something radically different from what they undertook when the contract was signed. Courts have held that for an employer to prove that the contract has been frustrated, they will need to demonstrate three things:
It is challenging to prove these three elements. A supervening event that radically changes the nature of an employment contract is rare. We are now seeing the results of cases where employers have unsuccessfully tried to argue that COVID-19 and its restrictions frustrated their employment contracts. One such case is the Aldergrove Duty Free Shop Ltd. v MacCallum (2024 BCCA 28) decision.
In Aldergrove Duty Free Shop Ltd. v MacCallum, Barbara MacCallum was a 78-year-old retail sales clerk for Aldergrove Duty Free Shop Ltd. (Aldergrove). Aldergrove is a small family-owned duty-free shop on the Canadian side of the Canada-United States border. In March 2020, the Canadian and United States land border was closed for non-essential travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This reduced Aldergrove’s customer base by ninety-nine percent. Due to the border’s closure, Aldergrove temporarily closed its doors, later resulting in the effective termination of Ms. MacCallum’s contract. Ms. MacCallum sued Aldergrove for wrongful dismissal. In response, Aldergrove claimed that the border closure frustrated the employment contract, thereby relieving it of any obligation to provide notice or pay in lieu of notice.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding that the employment contract was not frustrated by the border closure. The Court of Appeal found that the first two elements of the frustration defence, noted above, were established. This was not in dispute, as neither party would anticipate the COVID-19 pandemic and neither party was at fault for the border closing. The Court of Appeal found that the frustration defence failed on the third ground, as the closure of the border did not radically change Ms. MacCallum’s job duties. Instead, it was the economic viability of Ms. MacCallum continuing to do her job was what led to Aldergrove ending the employment relationship.
This case shows that courts have a stringent standard for the frustration defence. Courts will not bend the rules for small businesses that were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Though it may be tempting to claim that a contract is frustrated, as you will not have to pay any notice if successful, it can be even more costly when you get it wrong. In this case, even with legal counsel, the employer ended up paying ten months of pay in lieu of notice.
Any employer who plans to end an employment relationship due to a perceived frustration of the employment contract should meet with an employment lawyer. An employment lawyer can help by analyzing the facts of your case and determining if you fall into the defence of the contract being frustrated. If the employment lawyer believes that the employment contract was not frustrated, the lawyer can then provide other options to end the employment relationship.
At Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation we have a team of employment lawyers who understand when a contract becomes frustrated. We can help employers who want to end the employment of one of their employees while also minimizing the legal cost of termination. We can also help employees whose employer is improperly claiming that their employment contract has been frustrated. To speak to one of our employment lawyers, please call us at 705-268-6492 or email us at info@sdlawtimmins.com.
Most modern workplaces have a workplace policy that sets out the rules of the workplace. Often the workplace policy includes a progressive discipline policy, which sets out how the employer will discipline the employees who do not follow the workplace policy. Typically, progressive discipline starts with a verbal warning, then the penalty for not following the policy progressively increases to a written warning, then a suspension, and finally a for-cause termination. Based on the circumstances, these steps could be repeated or skipped. However, the purpose of implementing progressive discipline is to let the employee know that what they are doing is wrong and to have documentation that will help establish a for-cause termination if need be.
Progressive discipline is not a new topic to this blog. Our firm even offers progressive discipline training. However, it is always nice to see a case when an employer successfully applies progressive discipline, and with the proper retention of documents, can defend a for-cause termination in court.
In Pirani v CIBC (2023 ONSC 5991), Naseem Pirani was terminated, for cause, from her position as a Senior Financial Services Representative from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC). While employed with CIBC, Ms. Pirani received her first written warning letter after, over a period of two months, she failed to review an overdraft report to ensure that proper actions were taken regarding one of her client’s accounts, contrary to CIBC’s workplace policy. Later, Ms. Pirani received a second and final written warning because, contrary to CIBC’s workplace policy, on three occasions she pulled Credit Bureau records for clients without their signed consent. Ms. Pirani also received coaching after these privacy breaches, as it could cause liability to CIBC, as the bank is in a highly regulated industry. Despite the final warning, Ms. Pirani committed several more serious breaches of CIBC’s policy, which led to CIBC deciding to terminate her employment.
The judge found that dismissal was a proportional response to Ms. Pirani’s breaches of CIBC’s workplace policy. In this case, the judge found that CIBC properly applied progressive discipline. The judge found that the policies were brought to Ms. Pirani’s attention, and she should have been aware of the importance of the policies, especially after receiving the written warnings. Because CIBC implemented progressive discipline and documented Ms. Pirani’s violation of the policy through progressive discipline, they were able to establish a violation of the employment agreement. Indeed, the judge found that “on the balance of probabilities, that the cumulative breaches of the Code coupled with Ms. Pirani’s continued and persistent breaches of CIBC’s policies signaled that she had no intention to follow the bank’s policies and procedures, and therefore, the bank’s response in dismissing her was proportionate in the circumstances.” (para 173).
Pirani v CIBC addresses numerous legal issues beyond what I can discuss in this blog. However, it addresses the importance of following your workplace policy and applying and documenting progressive discipline when an employee breaches that workplace policy.
For employers, the Pirani v CIBC case stands as an example of making your policies clear and applying progressive discipline proportionally. Application of progressive discipline should be proportionate to the facts leading to discipline and thus may require more than just two written warnings in certain circumstances. This case also highlights the importance of keeping detailed records of the progressive discipline applied. These documents were crucial to CIBC getting a successful result in court.
For employees, the Pirani v CIBC case stands as an important reminder to be aware of your workplace policies and follow them. If your employer applies progressive discipline, take the opportunity to understand what you did wrong, so you can maintain compliance with your workplace policy moving forward.
As mentioned earlier in this blog, Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation is well-versed in progressive discipline. We provide progressive discipline training. However, if you have questions about progressive discipline in regards to an issue at your workplace, you can contact one of our employment lawyers by calling us at 705-268-6492 or emailing us at info@sdlawtimmins.com.
In the evolving landscape of employment laws and workplace dynamics, understanding and effectively addressing harassment, bullying, and lateral violence in the workplace is imperative for maintaining a safe and productive workplace. Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation’s employment lawyers recognize the complexity and seriousness of these issues.
In this blog post, I will briefly provide clarity on what constitutes harassment in the workplace and how it can affect your workplace. A more detailed account can be found in some of the training courses that we provide or by speaking to one of our employment lawyers.
Workplace harassment can take on many forms, all of which undermine the dignity and well-being of those who face it. It occurs when an individual acts towards another individual in a way that would reasonably be expected to cause offense or harm. Harassment can come from both the employer and the employees and can ultimately affect the workplace and lead to high employee turnover. Workplace harassment includes verbal abuse, offensive remarks, discrimination, unwelcomed comments, and offensive jokes.
Workplace harassment is normally a series of inappropriate incidents. However, one serious incident can be sufficient to constitute harassment.
Sexual harassment is a particularly insidious form of workplace misconduct that undermines the dignity and autonomy of those affected. It can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is reasonably known to be unwelcomed.
Women are more likely to face sexual harassment. However, men can be sexually harassed as well. Examples of sexual harassment include unwelcomed advances, displaying or showing sexually explicit material, sexual comments or jokes, and requests for sexual favours.
Bullying does not end in the school playground as kids. Bullying can happen in the workplace. Bullying in the workplace is the repeated, unreasonable actions directed towards an employee or group of employees that undermines their self-worth and feeling of belonging.
Women and minorities are more likely to experience bullying in the workplace, although it can happen to anyone. Workplace bullying can come in many forms, including verbal abuse, unjustified criticism, and exclusion.
It’s essential to distinguish between legitimate workplace interactions harassment or bullying. Constructive feedback, performance evaluations, and reasonable management actions taken in good faith does not constitute harassment or bullying. Similarly, isolated incidents or occasional disagreements, unless severe or pervasive, may not meet the threshold for harassment.
How to report workplace harassment and bullying will differ depending on the employer and the jurisdiction under which the employee works. Most employers are required to have workplace policies that prohibit workplace harassment and provide employees who face harassment a way to report the harassment.
Once an incident is reported, employers are typically required to conduct prompt and thorough investigations. This can be done by outside independent investigators. An investigation entails gathering evidence, interviewing relevant parties, and documenting findings. Employers should ensure confidentiality as much as is possible throughout the investigation process to protect the privacy of all involved.
Upon concluding an investigation, the employer can choose to take remedial action, if reasonable, which may include corrective action, disciplinary measures, and possibly termination. Employers are also typically required to review their harassment policy to determine if there is a way to prevent similar harassment occurring in the future.
Employers can be held liable for acts of harassment, bullying, or lateral violence that occur within their organizations. Under both federal and provincial legislation, employers have a duty to provide a safe and harassment-free workplace. Failure to fulfill this obligation can result in legal repercussions.
Employees who engage in harassing or bullying behavior may face disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Moreover, in certain circumstances, they may be personally liable for any harm caused to their colleagues through either civil or criminal proceedings.
Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation can support employees and employers in navigating the law on harassment in the workplace. We provide training for both provincial employers and federal employers that address harassment in the workplace. We can also help employers address workplace harassment by either acting as an investigator or guiding the employer through there legal requirements, including imposing discipline. To speak to one of our employment lawyers, please call us at 705-268-6492 or email us at info@sdlawtimmins.com.
Though it may surprise some, a lot of employment agreements are made orally. Sometimes it works out well. However, by creating an oral agreement, you put yourself in potential legal liability. With an oral contract, there will be no clear terms of employment. Further, you would be subject to common law notice if you need to terminate the employee. Simply put, if you create an oral employment agreement, you are at the mercy of the court if things go wrong.
It is also important to create written employment policies and then deliver them to your employees. You need to make sure that they acknowledge receipt and accept that it forms part of their employment agreement. Failure to do so will result in the policies being ineffective. The time, effort, and cost of creating the policies will be lost. It becomes an expensive piece of paper in your office.
The importance of having written employment contracts and having workplace policies that are circulated to all employees is obvious even to a semi-competent HR team. Boyer v Callidus (2024 ONSC 20) serves as an important reminder of this obligation, even when it is easier to look the other way.
In Boyer v Callidus, Craig Boyer worked for Callidus Capital Corporation (“Callidus”). He made an oral agreement to work as one of Callidus’ vice presidents, a position that has a net pay of over $200,000, significant bonuses, and a stock option plan as part of the compensation. Callidus did have written workplace policies. However, they did not circulate the policies well, resulting in Mr. Boyer not being aware of most of them. The policies that Mr. Boyer did see were often unclear and required Mr. Boyer to ask for clarification from his employer, creating new elements to his oral employment agreement. Eventually, Mr. Boyer decided to retire. Among other things, Mr. Boyer asked for a payout of his unused banked vacation days, payment of his deferred bonuses, and payment in lieu of getting the stock option plan to which he was entitled to. Callidus claimed that it had a no carry over vacation policy, a policy on the deferred bonus plan, and a policy on when the stocks vest.
The court ruled that Mr. Boyer was entitled to his banked vacation days. The court found that Callidus failed to provide evidence that it had a use it or lose it policy for paid vacation days. Even if it did have such a policy, the court found that Mr. Boyer was not made aware of such a policy and therefore cannot be bound by it. The court also found that Mr. Boyer never received a copy of the deferred bonus policy. As such, Callidus could not use the deferred bonus policy’s requirement to still be employed with Callidus as a condition to get the earned but deferred bonus. The court found that Callidus had a policy on stock options that they gave to Mr. Boyer. However, the policy was not clear in all situations when the stocks would vest. At the time of receiving the policy, Mr. Boyer asked his superior if the stock options would vest upon retirement. Since the superior said yes, the court found that became part of Mr. Boyer’s oral contract and thus entitled him to his stocks upon retirement. In conclusion, the court ruled that Mr. Boyer was entitled to $93,076.92 for the banked vacation days, $525,000 plus 3% interest for the deferred bonuses, and $1,213,856.98 for damages for the value of the lost stock options.
This may be obvious for those with employment law or HR experience, but do not have an oral employment agreement. This case shows that you can end up making new clauses to an oral employment agreement by the employee simply asking the employer a question about the job. The lack of clarity in an oral employment agreement allows a lot to be interpreted, which, as this case shows, can be costly.
This case also shows the importance of drafting clear policies and circulating them to all of your employees with the understanding that they will govern the employment relationship. This case shows how the failure to circulate the employment policy makes it useless. Employees need to be aware of the rules that they are bound to.
At Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation we have employment lawyers who have experience with drafting both employment contracts and employment policies and can guide you with implementing them. Avoid liability with any oral contracts or policies and get our employment lawyers to draft the relevant legal documents to your wishes. To contact one of our employment lawyers, please call us at 705-268-6492 or email us at info@sdlawtimmins.com.
It is hard to find a new job after you are fired regardless of the reason for the termination. The law recognizes this. In Ontario, employees are entitled to notice or pay in lieu of notice so they can have time to find a new job without much financial disruption.
Finding a new job after a short term of work, especially one that was meant to be indefinite, can be even more challenging. An employee will often need to explain the reason why they were terminated if they hope to obtain a new job. This awkward conversation can lengthen the time it takes to find new employment. The law recognizes this, and courts are giving more notice entitlements to short-term employees.
Grimaldi v CF+D Custom Fireplace Design Inc., 2023 ONSC 6708
The Grimaldi v CF+D Custom Fireplace Design Inc. case is one of the more recent cases where an employee received a substantial notice period despite being a short-term employee. In that case, Joseph Grimaldi was hired to work for CF+D Custom Fireplace Design Inc. (CF+D), in an upper management role. Mr. Grimaldi left his previous job for this job in hopes of earning a greater income. The permanent employment contract was simple only outlining pay and benefits. There was no termination provision. However, after working for less than five months, Mr. Grimaldi was terminated without cause and was provided with two weeks of pay.
The judge found that Mr. Grimaldi was entitled to common law notice, as determined by the Bardal factors. The Bardal factors consider the employee's character of employment, the length of service, the age of the employee, and the availability of similar employment. Courts have added other factors to consider how long an employee may need to find new employment. In this case, Mr. Grimaldi was a senior project manager for 4 months and 23 days, he was 50 years old, and despite over a hundred attempts, he was having trouble obtaining similar employment. In this case, the judge noted that the short term of Mr. Grimaldi's employment was likely a key factor affecting his ability to find similar employment. The judge noted that due to Mr. Grimaldi's age and experience, he would need to have an awkward conversation with prospective employers explaining why he had such a short employment term with CF+D. After considering all the Bardal factors, the judge awarded Mr. Grimaldi 5 months and two weeks of notice.
Takeaways from Grimaldi v CF+D Custom Fireplace Design Inc.
The Grimaldi v CF+D Custom Fireplace Design Inc. decision is notable because of how many months of notice Mr. Grimaldi got despite a short period of work. However, Mr. Grimaldi's case was a perfect storm with him being in a more managerial position and in a higher age bracket, and the difficulty to find similar employment, which are all Bardal factors that suggest a longer notice period. The only minimizing factor was the length of employment. Therefore, I would caution those with a short term of employment to take this case as evidence of how much notice that they are entitled to upon termination.
Typically, an employee who gets terminated after a short period of employment will likely get a shorter notice period than Mr. Grimaldi. Though the Court of Appeal in Love v Acuity Investment Management Inc., (2011 ONCA 130) has noted that the facts of each case determine the relative notice period, length continues to be a significant factor. For most short-term employees, it is easier to take a short amount of pay in lieu of notice over trying one's luck in court, which comes with significant legal fees.
How Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation can help
If you have been fired from your job, you should contact one of the employment lawyers at Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation. We can inform you of your legal entitlements and offer a strategy to get what you are owed. To contact one of our employment lawyers please call us at 705-268-6492 or email us at info@sdlawtimmins.com.
Picture this, Ally is single, nearing 30 years old, sitting in her cubical putting in 40+ hours of work a week, while all her friends seem to be getting married and having kids. Her weekends are full of errands and household chores and every once in a while, she finds herself swiping left and right on dating apps hoping to find a decent date for her next friend’s wedding. But what happens when she matches with Steve, who she later realizes, after chatting for a while, works in the finance department of her office? Well, she should look at her workplace policies of course!
Although workplace relationships are not regulated by any legislation or illegal by any means, employers are allowed to implement workplace policies that restrict workplace romances. These policies are utilized to help protect against claims of harassment, conflicts of interest, or negative effects on the workplace. It is important to note that there is a difference between consensual relationships and unwelcome sexual advances (harassment). An employer is required by law to have workplace harassments policies in place, but there is no requirement for workplaces to have policies on workplace relationships. However, the best practice for an employer is to not only have a comprehensive harassment policy, but to also provide its employees with a thorough workplace relationship policy outlining the restrictions and procedures employees must adhere to.
Most employers will not take the approach of an outright ban on workplace relationships, but a lot of them will have some sort of restrictions, limitations, or require an element of disclosure. The policy may implement a restriction on no physical signs of affection (ie. handholding or kissing) at the workplace, as this can make other employees feel uncomfortable, or it may implement a ban on workplace relationships between superiors and subordinates, as this power imbalance poses a real risk to the workplace if the relationship were to breakdown, or it may require you to fill out forms with the human resources or legal department disclosing the nature of your relationship.
Let’s go back to Ally and Steve, after they reviewed their workplace relationship policy, they noticed that there were no restrictions on relationships between employees from different departments. As long as someone from the human resources department was notified of the relationship and they did not discuss personal matters at work or engage in any distracting or disruptive behaviour that may impact the values and culture of the workplace, they were free to date.
Usually, an employer cannot terminate its employees for having a consensual relationship, where policies and procedures are followed. However, termination can occur if an employee refuses to follow the policies and procedures of the workplace. If you are approached by your employer and asked about your relationship with a co-worker and you lie or mislead them, this dishonesty can be seen as a breach of your workplace policy and therefore can lead to disciplinary actions, including termination. The best thing you can do as an employee is to be honest and follow the guidelines set out in the workplace policies.
Connect With Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation 705-268-6492
If you are an employer looking to create a comprehensive workplace relationship policy, or are an employee who is uncertain about the legality of an office romance, please feel free to reach out to Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation by calling us at (705) 268-6492 or emailing us at info@sdlawtimmins.com and we would be more than happy to help!