As a Workers’ Compensation practitioner, I have for years been troubled by the 2002 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, in the case of Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, a wrongful dismissal case that awarded damages, not only for 12 months’ pay in lieu of notice, but for aggravated damages in the amount of $15,000 for the tort of “intentional infliction of mental suffering”.
Employees may have a further basis upon which to challenge termination clauses in their employment contracts following a pair of recent Ontario Superior Court decisions. Ironically, the source of the challenge in these cases was the use of inexact “catch-all” language purporting to clarify an employee’s entitlement on termination. The two highlighted cases point to the importance of using precise language to ensure termination clauses do not run afoul of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”).
Proposed amending legislation to the Employment Standards Act, 2000, (“Act”) introduced earlier this March by Ontario’s government will, if passed, result in three new unpaid, job-protected leaves:
On December 24, 2007, a guest at Blue Mountain Resort in Collingwood, Ontario died while swimming in an unsupervised indoor pool at the resort. Following this incident, a Ministry of Labour Inspector made an order that, pursuant to s.
Background As most unionized employers in the construction industry know, the raid season began on February 1st. For those less familiar with this phenomena some explanation might be necessary.
Property Damage Emily Anne Maclean worked in a farmer’s market. On August 1, 2003, she placed eggs on a hot plate to boil in order to make them ready for the next day’s sandwiches. She got distracted in another part of the store. Upon smelling smoke, she returned to the hot plate only to find “full blown flames”. The farmer's market was destroyed and Ms. MacLean was sued in negligence by the market’s insurer. In dismissing this claim, the Court concluded: