Mitigation With One's Former Employer - Do You Always Have To?
by Janice B. Payne on July 19, 2016
When is a wrongfully dismissed employee required to accept on offer of re-employment to mitigate his or her damages against a former employer?
In the event of an unjust dismissal, both employees and employers have important roles to play: on the one hand, employees generally have an obligation to mitigate their damages by seeking an alternate source of income; on the other hand, employers have an obligation to compensate an unjustly dismissed employee for his or her losses due to lack of notice and/or severance.
Wilson v. Atomic Energy - Supreme Court Drops Atomic Bomb on Unjust Dismissal Regime
No one wants to be terminated from their employment, especially from a position they love and find rewarding. But terminated employees still have rights - what these rights are, however, will depend on who you work for.
Most workers fall under provincial laws. In Ontario, as in most provinces, an employee can be terminated without cause so long as they are provided with and/or paid the appropriate amount of notice and severance, either in accordance with their employment contract or at common law (and, at a minimum, those sums pursuant to the Employment Standards Act). Employees are also protected against discriminatory dismissals under human rights legislation.
Maximizing Severance Settlements Through Tax Avoidance
by Jim Anstey on July 12, 2016
It is not uncommon for dismissed employees and their former employers to disagree on the magnitude of the severance package offered. Of course, employers believe dismissed employees will find new employment quickly, while employees fear it will take them a long time to find something comparable. The point of this post is not to explore what might be fair in any given case, but to canvas how settlement dollars can be stretched to maximize the value of the severance package. The theme that runs through all of the options discussed below is tax avoidance.
Statistically Significant Evidence - A Cause for Success
by Christopher C. Rootham on June 30, 2016
In British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal) v. Fraser Health Authority, seven technicians at a single hospital laboratory were diagnosed with breast cancer. Each of them applied for compensation under British Columbia’s Workers Compensation Act (“the Act”) on the basis that the cancer was an occupational disease. The payment of benefits under the Act is conditional upon the employment having been of “causative significance” in the development of the worker’s illness.
Changes to EI for Maternity Benefits
by Alison McEwen on June 23, 2016
A Private Members Bill, brought by MP Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands), is seeking to change the rules around Employment Insurance (“EI”) and maternity leave. Bill C-243 was introduced and has already had its first reading in the House of Commons.
According to MP Gerretsen, the purpose of Bill C-243 is to amend the Employment Insurance Act in order to allow a mother to begin using her maternity benefits 15 weeks before the week in which she expects to be off of work, in situations where she is unable to perform the duties of her regular employment and where her employer is unable to modify her job functions or reassign her to another job.
Read more on Changes to EI for Maternity Benefits