On January 13, 2015, Daniel Tucker-Simmons, an articling student at RavenLaw, won a case before the Landlord and Tenant Board on behalf of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). ACORN has been fighting for years to improve housing conditions in the low – mid income areas in Ottawa for its members and others.

The case involved a landlord’s failure to repair a 150-meter stretch of walkway which had fallen into disrepair, creating a serious safety hazard for residents. Despite years of repair requests by residents, including ACORNmember Mavis Finnamore, prior landlords and the current landlords did not repair the walkway.

After Ms. Finnamore filed an application with the Board, RavenLaw provided Daniel’s services to represent ACORN member Mavis Finnamore at the Board hearing. Daniel’s victory before the Board means that the landlord will have to pay to fix the walkway. The victory is also the latest in a series of big wins for ACORN’s housing justice campaign, which stretches back to 2011 and has helped residents achieve over $200,000 in rent abatements and repair work.

Read more about the case on ACORN’s blog.

Nowadays most employees spend at least a portion of their workday using a computer, raising important privacy questions of what kinds of computer surveillance employers can implement on their employees’ work computers and under what circumstances.

Questions relating to employer surveillance – when? why? how much is too much? – are long-standing issues in both unionized and non-unionized workplaces. Traditionally, decision-makers have been sharply divided over when employers can implement surreptitious video surveillance over their employees, for example, and then rely on videotape evidence for later discipline.

This division has largely centred on a fundamental disagreement between decision-makers as to whether employees have a right to privacy in the workplace. This same disagreement carried over into the early computer surveillance decisions, where courts and arbitrators routinely found that employees had no expectation of privacy in work computers and upheld discipline and even termination based on non-work computer use.

Protecting the “Biographical Core”: R v Cole

That perception was shaken by a number of cases in the early 2000’s, but none moreso than the Ontario Court of Appeal’s 2011 and the Supreme Court’s 2012 decisions in R v Cole. While Cole dealt with a challenge to the search and seizure of an employee’s work computer by police, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to comment more broadly on employees’ right to privacy in their work computers. The Court found that an expectation of privacy could be inferred where personal computer use was permitted or reasonably expected:

Computers that are reasonably used for personal purposes – whether found in the workplace or the home – contain information that is meaningful, intimate, and touching on the user’s biographical core. Vis-à-vis the state, everyone in Canada is constitutionally entitled to expect privacy in personal information of this kind.

While workplace policies and practices may diminish an individual’s expectation of privacy in a work computer, these sorts of operational realities do not in themselves remove the expectation entirely: The nature of the information at stake exposes the likes, interest, thoughts, activities, and searches for information of the individual user.

Implications for Employees: Right to Privacy at Work

While the long-term implications of Cole are not yet clear – particularly given that the Court declined to comment specifically on employer computer surveillance or the ability of an employer to seize and search a work computer – decision-makers have begun to adopt its reasoning to find a breach of employee privacy rights when employers engage in surreptitious, unjustified computer surveillance. For example:

• The British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner found an employer internet usage audit to be a breach of privacy where the employee had never attempted to hide his internet usage and had never been approached about it by the employer prior to the audit.
• The Alberta Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that an employer had contravened privacy legislation when it installed keystroke logging software on an employee’s computer to monitor productivity. The Commissioner particularly noted the availability of less intrusive measures and the failure to limit the scope of the employer’s investigation.

These examples aside, however, decision-makers have yet to fully address the question of what Cole will mean for the traditional approaches to employer surveillance. While older cases extended employers a nearly unfettered right to set ethical, professional and operational standards for their workplace, Cole recognized that employer policies and practices may diminish a privacy right but cannot remove it entirely. Whether future decision-makers will accept a robust conception of employee privacy rights or will return to tests largely based on employer reasonableness remains to be seen.

A Right Without A Remedy

In any event, the suggestion in some post-Cole case law that employers ought to undertake less intrusive steps prior to surveilling employee computers raises a separate, perplexing question: what happens if employers don’t?

So far, Privacy Commissioners, in large part because of the nature of their authority, have provided for little in the way of remedy beyond ordering that the surveillance cease. For employees whose privacy was breached or who have been disciplined as a result of this intrusion, this may provide little comfort.

More recently, the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench upheld the decision of a labour arbitrator which relied in part on an employee’s privacy interest in her work computer to reduce a termination for inappropriate email use to a suspension.

Other decision-makers, however, have found that an employer’s violation of privacy rights cannot lessen the seriousness of inappropriate work computer use. In these circumstances, it has been suggested that decision-makers can do no more than recommend that the employer take privacy interests into account in the future.

The decisions in Cole took significant steps towards changing how we discuss employee privacy in relation to work computers. As the trial judge in Cole stated, office computers are much like office desks and personal papers much like personal computer files. However, until decision-makers develop a substantive way to provide remedies for the breach of an employee’s privacy interest in his or her work computer, the change in how we talk about privacy rights at work cannot translate into protection for employees.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

The right to work in a safe and healthy environment is a cornerstone of modern employment rights. One of the ways that governments ensure and promote the health and safety of workers is through legislation. For employees who work in federally regulated workplaces, the applicable legislation is the Canada Labour Code. The purpose of the occupational health and safety provisions of the Code is to prevent accidents and injury to health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment.

On October 31, 2014, changes to the occupational health and safety provisions of the Code took effect. These changes have the potential to erode some of the key rights that workers had under the old version of the Code and may work against the Code’s stated purpose of preventing accidents and injury to health.

Application of the Canada Labour Code

The provisions of the Code apply to workers who are employed in federally regulated industries, including banks, railways, highway and air transport, radio and television broadcasting,  and (for some purposes) employees of the federal government as well as Crown corporations and agencies.

Occupational Health and Safety under the Canada Labour Code

The occupational health and safety provisions are contained in Part II of the Code. These provisions impose duties on employers and employees to ensure the health and safety of everyone in the workplace. The Code establishes three basic health and safety rights for employees:

1. The right to know about hazards in the workplace and information that will help protect employees’ health and safety;
2. The right to participate in health and safety processes in the workplace; and
3. The right to refuse unsafe work.

Amendments to the Canada Labour Code

The recent Code amendments contain a number of significant changes to the health and safety provisions. Perhaps the most significant changes are those which limit an employee’s ability to refuse unsafe work.

Definition of a workplace “danger” amended

The definition of danger is significant for accessing many of the rights contained in the Code, including the right to refuse unsafe work. Previously, “danger” extended to situations involving exposures that could result in chronic illness, disease or damage to the reproductive system. Under the new definition, for a situation to be a “danger”, there must be serious or imminent risk to life or health.

Increased powers to Minister to investigate, dismiss work refusals

Previously, if an employer investigated a work refusal and determined that there was a danger, it was mandatory for a health and safety officer to investigate the matter in the presence of the employee. The amendments create two significant changes to this process: first, it is now the Minister of Labour or the Minister’s delegate that performs the investigation. Second, and perhaps more significantly, the investigation is not mandatory—rather, the Minister can dismiss complaints without investigating if he or she is of the view that the matter can be dealt with under another procedure of the Code. The Minister can also dismiss a complaint without investigation if he or she is of the view that the matter is trivial, frivolous or vexatious or if the refusal to work is made in bad faith. If the Minister does not proceed with an investigation, the employee can no longer refuse to work.

The amendments may erode the right of workers to refuse unsafe work

The new provisions of the Code only recently came into effect and it is difficult to say exactly how workers will be affected. It remains to be determined whether the changes to the definition of danger will limit the circumstances in which workers can refuse work on the basis of a dangerous situation in the workplace, or whether courts will interpret “danger” in essentially the same way as under the old definition. While the implications of the change to the definition of danger are uncertain at this point in time, it does seem clear that the new powers of the Minister to dismiss complaints without investigation bestow wide-ranging discretion on the Minister. As an employee cannot continue to refuse to work if the Minister does not proceed with an investigation, the Minister’s ability to dismiss complaints without investigation could result in workers returning to unsafe conditions.  Worker advocates will be closely following how these amendments are interpreted and applied by employers and the courts.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

The Federal Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in which the Commission rejected a human rights complaint against the Bank of Nova Scotia at the pre-investigation stage. The Appellant, Robert McIlvenna, had a mortgage with the Bank, and had applied for an additional line of credit to perform renovations on the mortgaged house, which was occupied by his son and daughter-in-law. The Bank refused the line of credit and called in Mr. McIlvenna’s mortgage, and he alleged the Bank took this action because it had learned that medicinal marijuana was being grown in the home under a Health Canada license. The Bank maintained that the reason for its actions was a violation of the terms of the mortgage. 

The Commission rejected the complaint under section 41 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which authorizes the Commission to refuse to deal with a  complaint without an investigation in certain circumstances. In its unanimous decision granting the appeal, the Court held that it was unreasonable for the Commission to have dismissed the complaint without an investigation, because there was a live contest between Mr. McIlvenna and the Bank as to whether the Bank made its decision on discriminatory grounds. Justice Stratas wrote on behalf of the Court: 

“At this point in its process, the Commission cannot acceptably or defensibly resolve the live contest between Mr. McIlvenna and the report of the Bank’s in-house counsel in favour of the latter, at least until it investigates further under section 43. But here, nonetheless, it purported to do so. In so doing, it must have engaged in some sort of weighing process that led it to favour the report of the Bank’s in-house counsel. This it cannot do. During the section 41 stage, a weighing process of the sort conducted here is no part of its task.”

This decision provides important clarification of the proper scope of the Commission’s decisions at the section 41 stage of its process, and confirms its duty to investigate when there is a live dispute regarding the material facts of the human rights complaint.  

Mr. McIlvenna was represented by Andrew Astritis and Amanda Montague-Reinholdt from our firm. A copy of the Court’s reasons for judgment can be found here.

The process for successfully claiming long-term disability (“LTD”) insurance benefits can be complex and lengthy (See our article on “Navigating your Claim for Long-Term Disability (LTD) Insurance”). Unfortunately, part of that process often includes responding to a denial of your claim by the insurance company. This article summarizes the key steps to take if your disability claim has been denied.

When are you likely to be turned down for LTD insurance benefits? 

LTD policies usually have two different kinds of coverage.  For the first two years, the coverage provided is commonly known as “own occupation” coverage, meaning that if you can’t do the primary functions of your job, you are entitled to benefits.  After this period, the coverage often changes to “any occupation” coverage, meaning you will only continue to receive benefits if you cannot perform any job for which you are suited because of your background and not just your old job.  Claims for LTD benefits can be denied either before coverage starts, or after two years, when the definition changes.

Key Tips for Responding to a Denial of a Claim for LTD insurance benefits:

1. Don’t give up!

Many people are discouraged when they are turned down for LTD benefits.  They should not take it personally.  Refusals are often a part of the process, and are not necessarily an indication of whether your claim for LTD benefits will ultimately be determined.

2. Internal Appeals

It is possible to appeal internally to the insurance company.  The insurance company may alter its decision and provide LTD benefits, if new medical evidence is provided.  Unfortunately, in many cases, the internal appeal does not change the initial refusal.

3. Suing the insurance company for your LTD benefits

Often the only way to obtain benefits from an insurance company after your disability claim has been refused is to sue.  For many people, the prospect of litigating with an insurance company, particularly when you are disabled and without income, seems impossible.  We recommend that disabled people seek good advice from competent, experienced lawyers, who can properly advise you on your rights.  With the help of good counsel, you can enforce your rights and obtain the benefits for which you have paid.

Counsel work either on an hourly basis, or on a contingency basis (a percentage of the amount recovered).  Many people prefer to hire counsel on a contingency basis, because there is no payment of legal fees unless and until there is recovery from the insurance company.

In all cases, it is strongly advised that you seek advice as quickly as possible after benefits are refused, as there are time limits which may cause you to lose the right to sue the insurance company.

4.  Opportunities for Mediation

Although it may be necessary to start legal proceedings to enforce your legal rights, it is important to know that most cases settle at mediation.   Mediation is a negotiation session conducted by an experienced neutral facilitator.  The mediator will explore with the parties whether it is in their best interests to settle the claim for a lump sum or by reinstating the insured worker’s benefits.  The mediator will have the parties explore the risks and costs of litigation and help them to determine whether a settlement is preferable to carrying on to Trial.

Conclusion

If you have been turned down for LTD benefits, please do not give up.  If you retain good, experienced counsel and follow their advice, you stand a good chance of obtaining a satisfactory solution.

We are here to help navigate the LTD application process. Consult one of our experienced Long Term Disability lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are considering making a claim for disability benefits or if your claim for benefits has been denied. 

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

No matter what kind of employment problem you are facing—e.g. a claim for wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, or a human rights complaint—you may ultimately decide to settle your case for some form of compensation, rather than proceeding to a hearing. In that case, it is worth taking the time to think about the best way to structure your settlement agreement because different kinds of agreements and different kinds of compensation can lead to a wide range of tax consequences.

Seven key considerations in structuring a settlement agreement:

1. Compensation for lost income is fully taxable under the Income Tax Act because it is treated like any other employment income.
2. Compensation for the loss of employment, such as severance pay or reasonable notice (see: What is reasonable notice? ), is also fully taxable under the Income Tax Act. Unless certain limited exceptions apply, these kinds of compensation are considered “retiring allowances” under the Income Tax Act.
3. If part of your employment with your employer took place prior to 1996, you can roll a portion of a retiring allowance payment into an RRSP. The roll-over is tax-free, and you do not need existing room in your RRSP to roll-over eligible amounts. Similar rules exist for any part of your employment that took place prior to 1989.
4. Compensation for damages, such as for mental distress or pain and suffering, are not subject to tax. Damages must be reasonable, however, and there must be some proof to support the claim for damages. The claim for damages also has to be independent from the loss of employment. If the mental distress was caused by the loss of employment, then any damages for mental distress will be considered part of employment income or a retiring allowance and will be taxable.
5.  Damages for human rights violations are also non-taxable. Like damages for mental distress, they must be reasonable and similar to what a human rights tribunal might award. Be especially careful because, in some jurisdictions, legislation puts a maximum cap on damages for human rights in a tribunal’s award. In those cases, the amount characterized as human rights damages in the settlement agreement cannot go over the cap.
6.  Compensation for counselling services is not subject to tax. “Counselling services” have been defined to include job placement, re-employment, and retirement counselling services.
7.  Compensation for legal fees is deductible for employees. Where the payment is made directly from the employer to the employee’s legal adviser, this amount is non-taxable.

Conclusion

Both employees and employers need to take time to consider the structure of the settlement agreement and how to characterize any compensation changing hands. While the parties can reach agreements that maximize the benefits of the settlement for both sides, any settlement must be reasonable and grounded in the facts of the case. An unreasonable settlement agreement may be reviewed by the Canada Revenue Agency. For help determining the best structure of your settlement agreement, you should seek advice from an employment lawyer.

We are here to help: Consult one of our experienced employment lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP to assist you in developing or reviewing a settlement agreement for your employment claim. 

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

If you have brought, or are considering bringing, a claim against your employer for wrongful dismissal, you may believe that you can sit back and watch daytime TV, waiting to recover your damages from the employer. That is not the case: you have a duty to “mitigate” your damages.

 Mitigating or reducing your damages by seeking alternate work

Mitigation means reducing the damages you have sustained by reason of the wrongful dismissal. Specifically, it means looking hard for new gainful employment.  The failure to properly mitigate your damages can result in your reasonable notice period damages being reduced.

Tips for mitigating your wrongful dismissal damages

• Look for reasonably comparable employment: You do not need to accept any job on offer. Your duty is to make reasonable efforts to find comparable employment.
• Keep records: It is important that you keep a record of your efforts, both in a hard copy and electronic file.  You should keep track of everything, including on-line searches, interviews, letters sent out and received, coffee and lunch meetings, etc.  At some point you may well be asked by a lawyer for your former employer what you have done to mitigate your damages.  These steps will ensure that have a complete answer.
• Keep track of any expenses incurred: As part of mitigation, you may incur some expenses—for example, to obtain training or to start a small business.  It may be possible to claim certain of these costs from your former employer.

Mitigating by continuing to work for the employer

Issues of proper mitigation also arise in constructive dismissal cases.  If, for example, the employer significantly reduces your salary or demotes you to a lower position, your employer may claim that the most effective form of mitigation consists of remaining in your former lower position for the length of the reasonable notice period.  When an employee is entitled to walk away in a constructive dismissal matter is a difficult one, requiring specialized advice from an employment lawyer.

We are here to help: Consult one of our experienced employment lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are considering making a claim for wrongful dismissal. 

 [The following information applies to non-unionized employees. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

If you have a potential legal issue related to your employment, the first question you must ask is: what are my rights as an employee? Put another way: what are the terms and conditions of my employment? Those terms and conditions will determine what you are entitled to if you are fired, or whether the employer can change your working conditions without your agreement. The terms of your employment come from three general sources: your employment contract; the common law; and employment-related legislation.

Your Employment Contract Terms and Conditions 

The foundation for the employment relationship between you and your employer is your employment contract. This contract can be verbal or written—as long as there has been an offer of employment on certain terms, and an acceptance of that offer, a contract of employment will be formed. No matter the form of your employment contract, you should review its terms and conditions carefully to ensure you understand them.

In some circumstances, the terms in an employment contract may be found invalid by the courts. For example, if the terms in the contract violate employment standards legislation, discussed below, those terms will be considered void. In rare cases, courts may also find that a term in an employment contract is unconscionable (grossly unfair to the employee, and agreed to as a result of an overwhelming imbalance in bargaining power). When interpreting an employment contract, if a term in the contract is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations, courts will favour the interpretation that is more favourable to the party that did not draft the contract (usually, the employee).

If you are unsure about the terms and conditions of your employment contract, or their validity, you should seek legal advice from an employment lawyer.

The Common Law

In addition to the terms and conditions that are “expressly” set out in your employment contract, there are also terms and conditions that are “implied” under the common law (a set of legal principles developed through court decisions). If a certain employment right is not addressed through an express term in your contract, it may nonetheless be implied under the common law.

The most common example of an implied term of employment is the requirement for employers to give reasonable notice to employees upon termination. It is possible that your employment contract states how many weeks or months of notice you are entitled to in the event you are terminated; however, if your contract is silent on that point, then your entitlement to notice of termination is determined through common law legal principles. (See our article on “What is Reasonable Notice?”  for more information.)

There are many implied terms in the common law, which impose obligations on both employees and employers. The primary implied obligations for employees are to attend at work and perform the work assigned to you. Employers also have implied obligations, such as the duty to pay employees for work performed, and, as mentioned above, the duty to provide reasonable notice of termination.

It is important to remember, however, that it is possible for you and your employer to agree to terms and conditions in your contract that differ from the common law principles. In order for those different terms to be accepted by a court, they must be clearly stated.

Employment-Related Legislation

Both of the above sources of rights and obligations—the employment contract, and the common law principles—are subordinate to legislation (written laws passed by the federal Parliament or provincial legislature). Unlike common law principles, employers and employees cannot agree to terms of employment that violate legislation.

The main legislation that relates to your employment is employment standards legislation: for employees regulated under Ontario law, the relevant legislation is the Employment Standards Act. This legislation establishes a “floor”, or a minimum set of employment standards, which your employment contract cannot fall below. This legislation addresses many terms of employment, including wages, hours of work, holidays, and the minimum required notice of termination. As mentioned above, if a term in your employment contract falls below the minimum employment standards, it will be considered void by the courts.

It is important to note that certain types of employees, and certain industries, are excluded from employment standards legislation, which means its terms do not apply to those employees. Some employees are subject to federal employment standards legislation, because they work in an industry that falls under the federal Parliament’s jurisdiction. Advice from an employment lawyer should be sought to determine which legislation applies to you.

Other legislation is also relevant to your employment, including legislation in the following areas: occupational health and safety; privacy; workers’ compensation; and human rights. An employment lawyer can help you understand which legislation applies to you, and how it may impact your employment issue.

Conclusion

Your rights as an employee come from many sources, and as a result understanding your rights is no easy task. These rights will impact a claim you may have for wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, or other breaches of your employment contract. The best way to fully understand the terms and conditions of your employment is to review them with an employment lawyer, and obtain advice on how your contract, the common law, and legislation all interact to determine your rights as an employee.

We are here to help: Consult one of our experienced employment lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are unsure of the terms of your employment, or are considering making a claim for wrongful dismissal. 

[The following information applies to non-unionized employees. Unionized employees should consult their union representatives to review questions regarding the terms of their employment. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

Unless your employment contract states otherwise, your employer does not need a reason to terminate  your employment as long as it provides you with sufficient notice  of your termination or payment in lieu of notice.  Your employer can, however, terminate your employment without any notice if it has “ “just cause” to do so.  This will include situations in which you have breached your terms of employment either through misconduct, disobedience, or incompetence.

Contextual Approach to Just Cause for Termination

What constitutes just cause depends on a number of factors. In Canada, the courts use a contextual approach to determine whether an employee was terminated for just cause.  They consider the nature and extent of the misconduct, the context and surrounding circumstances and whether the termination or dismissal is warranted (in other words, whether the punishment fits the crime).

Grounds for Termination

1. Neglect of Duty

Whether or not you have a written employment contract, you have an obligation to perform your employment duties. Failure to perform your duties can lead to dismissal. Constantly arriving late for work or simply not showing up for work on a regular basis may be also considered just cause for dismissal if you do not have a reasonable explanation for this behavior.

2. Dishonesty

Trustworthiness is a key factor in any employment relationship. Acts of dishonesty may therefore constitute just cause for dismissal depending on the context and the circumstances of the case. For example, lying to your employer about an important qualification for the position can constitute just cause for dismissal.  Lying to the employer in order to cover up misconduct can also lead to dismissal unless there are mitigating circumstances such as an immediate retraction of the lie.  Whatever the circumstances, honesty is always the best policy.

3. Theft and Fraud

Theft and fraud constitute serious misconduct which, even if isolated, may amount to just cause for termination. Examples of such behavior include improper use of company funds, wrongful use of the employer’s property, abuse of sick leave and conducting personal business on company time. Because these are serious allegations, an employer must be able to prove that you intended to steal or commit fraud. As stated above, the context and surrounding circumstances must be considered in order to determine if there is just cause for dismissal.  For example, an employer may not have just cause to terminate an employee who makes an error in judgment if there was no dishonest motive.  Given the seriousness of allegations of theft or fraud, the employer must also give an employee an opportunity to provide a reasonable explanation for his conduct.

4. Misconduct

An employee may be terminated for cause for engaging in serious misconduct. Such misconduct is usually incompatible with the employee’s duties and prejudicial to the employer’s business.  Examples may include sexual harassment or assault of a co-worker and off-duty criminal conduct which is prejudicial to the employer’s reputation.  Once again, whether the misconduct constitutes just cause for dismissal will largely depend on the nature of the misconduct, the context and surrounding circumstances and whether the termination is reasonable.

5. Incompetence

An employer may not terminate you simply because he is dissatisfied with your performance. In order for an employer to allege just cause in terminating you for incompetence, the employer will have to show that you were warned that you were failing to meet objective standards of performance and that, despite these warnings and the opportunity to improve, you continued to underperform.

Conclusion

Many factors need to be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the employer had just cause to terminate your employment. If you have been terminated without notice for “just cause”, you should seek advice from an employment lawyer.

We are here to help. Consult one of our experienced Employment lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you have been terminated from your employment.

 [This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

If your employer terminates you without just cause (see: “Can my employer fire me for no reason?” ), they are required to provide you with notice of the termination. That notice can be given in two possible forms: “working notice” or “pay in lieu of notice”.

 “Working notice” is when you are given advance notice that your employment is going to end, but you continue to work and receive your regular compensation for the length of the notice period. Once the notice period is up, your employment ends, and the employer has no further obligations. The theory is that the employer has given you sufficient advance notice that your employment will be ending, to permit you to look for other work.  During the notice period, you will be required not only to look for other employment, but also to perform your usual tasks at the usual standard.  Failure to do so could result in termination for just cause .  The employer should provide reasonable time off to attend job.

“Pay in lieu of notice” is the more typical form of notice received when an employee is terminated without cause. In this case, you stops work on the day of termination, but receive payment equal to what you would have received if you had continued working through the notice period.

Length of Notice

Whether notice is given to you as working notice or pay in lieu of notice, the important question becomes: what amount of notice is reasonable notice?

Much like an employee’s general terms and conditions of employment (see: “Know Your Rights—Determining the Terms and Conditions of your Employment” ), there are three main places to look when calculating your notice period: legislation, your employment contract, and the law as developed through legal decisions.

In Ontario, the Employment Standards Act sets out a notice period based on an employee’s length of employment. This is the minimum amount that most employees in Ontario are entitled to. The basic entitlements under the Act are:

Your contract may also contain terms which specify the notice period that will apply if you are terminated without cause. If your contract contains a notice period term, this calculation will apply in most – but not all – circumstances, unless it is inconsistent with the minimums outlined in the Employment Standards Act.

Where there is no provision in your contract, however, you are not restricted to the minimum notice periods set out in the Employment Standards Act. Instead, you are entitled to “reasonable notice,” which is calculated based on the law as it has been developed through legal decisions.

Determining a reasonable notice period requires a review of your individual circumstances with the aim of estimating how long you will take to find a new, comparable job. The main factors that are considered are age, length of service, character of employment (for instance, an employee’s level of responsibility), and the availability of similar employment. In special circumstances, other factors can be considered, such as whether you were induced to leave a previous position by the employer.

A very general rule is that you are entitled to one month per year of service with the employer, up to a maximum of 24 months. This general rule is modified by the criteria listed above, as well as your duty to mitigate and other factors (see Mitigation ). Individual cases are very fact-dependent, and require legal advice.

Conclusion

You are entitled to notice of termination, usually in the form of a working notice period or pay in lieu of that working notice period. Notice periods may be set out in your contract or by reference to the Employment Standards Act. Where no notice period is set by contract, you are entitled to reasonable notice. Because reasonable notice is calculated through an individualized, case-by-case assessment, you should consult an employment lawyer for assistance estimating what a reasonable notice period would be in your circumstances.

We are here to help: Consult one of our experienced employment lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are considering making a claim for wrongful dismissal. 

[The following information applies to non-unionized employees. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]