Employment Law

Chronic work stress? Amendments will let more people qualify for workers’ compensation, but questions remain about how the changes will be applied

February 26th, 2018 by Michael Hackl

January 1, 2018 was a banner day for employee’s rights and protections in Ontario.

In addition to changes to the Employment Standards Act that came into force on January 1 (see our previous blog post here), a new entitlement for benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 (the WSIA) for “chronic or traumatic mental stress arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment” also came into effect that day.

An entitlement under the WSIA simply means that a worker who meets those criteria is entitled to benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) insurance plan. So, for example, the act states that a “worker who sustains a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his or her employment is entitled to benefits under the insurance plan.”

Previously, the WSIA provided that a worker suffering from mental stress was not entitled to benefits unless the stress was “an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event arising out of and in the course of his or her employment” – far too high a bar for many workers. As an example, prior to January 1, an employee might have been entitled to benefits if he or she experienced mental stress because they had been involved in or witnessed a horrific accident in the course of their employment, but not if they experienced mental stress due to an ongoing course of events, such as persistent harassment. Under the new entitlement the later scenario may be covered; the WSIA may provide benefits for mental stress resulting from an ongoing course of events.

Continue reading “Chronic work stress? Amendments will let more people qualify for workers’ compensation, but questions remain about how the changes will be applied”

Could #MeToo happen in your organization? Consider a Human Rights workshop

February 8th, 2018 by Celia Chandler

From Hollywood to Queen’s Park, every employer is thinking about how to make sure that employees are free from sexual harassment in the workplace.  This includes non‑profits which employ staff.  And it goes double for housing providers which must make an environment free from harassment and discrimination  for their employees and for their tenants or co‑op members.  No easy feat.  Our clients are educating themselves to be on top of this stuff.

Last weekend I spent a couple of hours with a housing co‑op board in Brampton delivering a workshop on human rights and the duty to accommodate;  next week I’m off to a Hamilton co‑op to do the same, this time for the board, staff and interested members.

If you’d like someone from our firm to come to your next board meeting for training on human rights or any other area of law where we practise, please ask.   We think our fees for these tailor‑made presentations are pretty reasonable.  And you know what they say ‑‑ an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The Supreme Court of Canada extends protections from employment discrimination by non‑employers

February 6th, 2018 by Elliot Fonarev

The Supreme Court of Canada has recently released a decision regarding workplace discrimination that has important implications for employers and employees alike. In British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, the 6‑3 majority of the court ruled that a co‑worker can be held liable under BC’s Human Rights Code for workplace discrimination against another co‑worker. While this case was about the jurisdiction of the BC Human Rights Tribunal and interpretation of BC’s Human Rights Code, it sends a message to other provincial tribunals about how to approach discrimination in the employment context differently – and leaves many questions for employers. Continue reading “The Supreme Court of Canada extends protections from employment discrimination by non‑employers”

Changes to Parental Leave Benefits for workers in federally‑regulated companies

January 2nd, 2018 by Elliot Fonarev

On December 5, 2017, changes to the Employment Insurance Act that were introduced in Bill C-44, the Budget Bill Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, came into place. Employers may find the new changes will require amending existing leave policies and collective agreements to reflect the impact on top‑ups, or supplementary benefits to benefits claimants.

The changes apply to new claims for maternity, parental, and caregiver leave. Continue reading “Changes to Parental Leave Benefits for workers in federally‑regulated companies”

Employment Law Update – Bill 148 is now law and bringing changes to employment relationships

December 21st, 2017 by Michael Hackl

“Ontario’s economy, like others around the world, has changed. Work is different and, for many people, increasingly less secure. Many workers struggle to support their families on part-time, contract or minimum-wage work, and many more don’t have access to time off due to illness.”

These words are from a Government of Ontario webpage providing an overview of the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017, (the Act) which was introduced to address such concerns.  The Act, which has now been proclaimed into law, makes a number of changes to existing acts, such as the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the ESA), to provide improved rights and protection to workers.

Some of the changes have already come into effect, with many more coming into effect on January 1, 2018.  There are also additional changes that will come into effect on April 1, 2017 and January 1, 2019.  It is important that both employers and employees be aware of the revisions to the law and how they will change their employment relationships.  Continue reading “Employment Law Update – Bill 148 is now law and bringing changes to employment relationships”

Employers take note: Make sure your employees’ termination clauses don’t exclude benefits and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

May 16th, 2017 by Claudia Pedrero

With the provincial government looking at instituting a minimum wage of $15.00/hour, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the ESA) is generating headlines this week.

But one of the biggest pitfalls for employers in the ESA made judicial news at few weeks ago: the Ontario Court of Appeal further clarified employers’ obligations when terminating employees in its decision Wood v Fred Deeley Imports Ltd. (Wood) released earlier this year.

The important take-away from this case is: if the termination clause in an employment contract excludes even one obligation under the ESA the entire termination clause is unenforceable. As a result, the employee becomes entitled to common law reasonable notice discussed in more detail below. The employment clause will also be void even if the employer meets the ESA obligations that were excluded from the termination clause.

Continue reading “Employers take note: Make sure your employees’ termination clauses don’t exclude benefits and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.”