Category Archives: News

Courts differ on whether to deduct CERB benefits from wrongful dismissal damages

Courts differ on whether to deduct CERB benefits from wrongful dismissal damages
By Raven Law
[The firm gratefully recognizes the contribution of this post by articling student
Anna Rotman]

The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) was introduced in part to support
individuals who lost their jobs due to the pandemic. Millions of workers across
Canada who were out of work at some point during the pandemic have received
CERB payments. Some of those workers may have made claims of wrongful
dismissal against their employers and are seeking damages either through a
settlement or a court action. The question for those employees is: Will the CERB
payments be deducted from their damages for wrongful dismissal?

It was unclear when the CERB was introduced whether it would be treated like
income received during an employee’s notice period, and therefore deducted from a
damages award, or if it would be treated like Employment Insurance (EI) benefits,
which are not considered mitigation income.

There are now a handful of court judgments across Canada considering this
question, and, unfortunately, they have not all come to the same conclusion.


Judgments refusing to deduct CERB payments from damages awards


The Ontario Superior Court rendered one decision refusing to deduct CERB
payments from a damages award, but the reasoning in that judgment was very
factspecific. In Iriotakis v Peninsula Employment Services Limited, Mr. Iriotakis
had been working as a salesperson and received most of his income through
commission. Due to a clause in the employment contract, the employer was not
obligated to pay him his commission during the reasonable notice period, leaving
him entitled only to his base salary. The judge stated that, based on these facts, it
would be inequitable to deduct the benefits he earned through CERB from his
damages. The Court was careful to note that this decision was based on the specific
facts of Mr. Iriotakis’s termination.

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has also refused to deduct CERB payments from
a damages award, on the basis that doing so would only benefit the employer and
could potentially harm the employee. By that time, the federal government had
made it clear that certain people would have to pay CERB back. In Slater v Halifax
Herald Limited, the Court was strongly influenced by the possibility that the
employee would be asked to pay the CERB back and would be put in a difficult
position. Furthermore, given the fact that CERB payments were meant to be income
replacement and could be subject to repayment, the Court found them to be
“analogous to EI benefits” and as such should not be considered in the calculation
of damages.

Judgments deducting CERB payments from damages awards

The British Columbia Supreme Court deducted CERB payments from damages for
wrongful dismissal in Hogan v 1187938 B.C. Ltd. Mr. Hogan had received $14,000
in CERB benefits in 2020 and the Court found that, if they were not deducted from
his wrongful damages, then he would be in a better financial position than he would
have been had the employer not fired him. The Court considered Iriotakis and
found that, unlike Mr. Iriotakis, Mr. Hogan’s employment contract did not limit his
damages and there was no equitable reason not to deduct CERB.

Furthermore, the Court distinguished CERB from employment insurance (EI) and
private insurance, neither of which are usually deducted from damages. First, the
employer and employee had not contributed to CERB and it was therefore not an
earned benefit. Second, the Court wrote, unlike EI, there was no obligation to pay
CERB back (this judgment was rendered before it became clear that CERB may
need to be repaid in some cases). It is thus unclear how the Court may have
decided had it been aware of the possibility that employees must repay CERB
benefits.

The Provincial Court of Saskatchewan also deducted CERB from wrongful dismissal
damages in Abdon v Brandt Industries Canada Ltd. Interestingly, it held that it
could not follow Iriotakis because the Ontario Superior Court seemed to have
reached its decision on an equitable basis and the Provincial Court of
Saskatchewan, being a statutory court, did not have equitable jurisdiction. This
decision potentially leaves it open for the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench to
follow Iriotakis since it does have jurisdiction to base decisions on equitable
principles.

Conclusion

The judgments so far considering whether to deduct CERB benefits from wrongful
dismissal damages have left a great deal of uncertainty for individuals. The unique
nature of these benefits seems to have left courts illequipped to account for those
benefits when determining an award of damages for wrongful dismissal.
We will be following closely as courts continue to grapple with this question. Consult
one of our experienced employment lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and
Yazbeck LLP if you collected CERB after termination and are concerned about the
damages you are owed for wrongful dismissal.

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

Federal Court Rejects Anti-Abortion Challenge to Government Funding Restrictions

On October 22, 2021, the Federal Court dismissed an application by the Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area (TRTL), which sought to challenge the Federal Government’s decision to deny it funding for the 2018 Canada Summer Jobs program because its president refused to sign an attestation that the job and the organization’s mandate respected human rights, including reproductive rights. Continue reading

Jessica Greenwood to Co-Chair Public Sector Bargaining Conference

On November 24, 2021, Jessica Greenwood will be co-chairing the Ontario Bargaining in the Broader Public Sector Conference, hosted by Lancaster House.
Jessica will be moderating panels on the economic forecast for 2022 and its potential impact on bargaining and on how the COVID-19 pandemic and the move to virtual meetings will impact bargaining processes. Other panels will address negotiations topics affecting workplaces in 2022, like post-pandemic health and safety concerns, and ways of improving bargaining processes for workers and employers.
The slate of presentations promises to be informative and extremely timely, as we hear about a shift towards greater bargaining power for workers and unions. Registration information can be found here.

Wassim Garzouzi Publishes Chapter on Collective Bargaining in Education

Wassim Garzouzi recently published a chapter in the edited collection, Collective Bargaining in Higher Education. Wassim’s chapter addresses the myth of academic exceptionalism in organizing and collective bargaining within academia, examined through the lens of a successful organizing drive and first contract achieved by the part-time law professors at the University of Ottawa.

The chapter is available here. The interest arbitration decision referred to in the chapter can be found here.

“Draconian and Inflexible”, Arbitrator Declares ORNGE’s Drug and Alcohol Policy to be Unreasonable and Discriminatory

The Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) was successful in two grievances challenging ORNGE’s Drug and Alcohol Policy. Specifically, the OPEIU challenged the ORNGE’s “zero-tolerance” approach to medical cannabis, and its practice to treat prescribed medicinal cannabis differently from other types of medication.

Arbitrator Gail Misra declared ORNGE’s policy to be discriminatory and unreasonable. She concluded that “having a blanket edict that if an employee can only use medical cannabis to treat their illness, they cannot do a safety sensitive job, is draconian and inflexible, and is not supported by the [Canadian Human Rights Act] or the jurisprudence.”

As a result, Arbitrator Misra declared the policy to be “unreasonable to the extent that it fails to treat prescribed medicinal cannabis as a “medication”.  Furthermore, “having found that Ornge’s inflexible position regarding cannabis use in a safety sensitive position is unreasonable, I also find that the Policy was drafted in a discriminatory manner in that it does not properly provide for accommodation to the point of undue hardship for those working in a safety sensitive position, who, due to their medical condition, are prescribed cannabis for medical treatment purposes.”

The OPEIU was represented by Wassim Garzouzi, Julia Williams and Patt Gibbs.

The decision can be accessed here.

Dayna Steinfeld Interviewed on Ableism in the Legal Profession

Dayna Steinfeld gave a feature interview to the Law Society of Manitoba’s Equity Officer on ableism and disability discrimination in the legal profession for the December issue of the Communiqué newsletter. Focusing on human rights in hiring and in practice in the legal profession, Dayna answered common questions that arise for lawyers as employers and employees.
Dayna’s interview is available here.

Manitoba Employment Standards Code – What You Need to Know

Manitoba Employment Standards Code – What You Need to Know

By Dayna Steinfeld

In Manitoba, The Employment Standards Code (“ESC”) establishes basic and minimum rights and standards for provincial employees. Where the ESC applies to a worker’s job, these rights and standards are mandatory. This kind of legislation is not unique to Manitoba. Employment standards statutes are found in every province and in the federal jurisdiction, and there are many general similarities between the Manitoba ESC and legislation in other provinces. However, each piece of legislation is distinct and there are differences in the specific rights and entitlements established through the legislation in each province. It is important for workers in Manitoba to know their rights under the ESC to help avoid being taken advantage of in their jobs. Below are some key areas where questions commonly arise for employees in Manitoba.

Can my employer make deductions from my wages?

Many workers have been faced with the situation of having the cost of a uniform or tools deducted from their pay. But is this permitted under the ESC?  

In  Manitoba, employers are generally prohibited from making deductions from employee wages, unless the deductions are required by federal or provincial law (such as EI or CPP contributions) or permitted by a court order. Employers are specifically prohibited from making deductions for uniforms and for any amount to cover any cost arising from faulty work of the employee or damage caused by the employee, or to cover a cash shortage such as in a “dine and dash” situation. 

There are certain circumstances where other deductions from pay are permitted:

  • With the employee’s consent, the employer may deduct an amount for something that is provided as a direct benefit to the employee which the employee was not required to obtain from the employer.
  • An amount for business supplies or tools may be deducted, but only if several requirements are met: the employee was not required to purchase the supplies or tools from the employer; the employee is able to keep the supplies or tools when they are no longer working for the employer; and the employer is not required by law to provide the supplies or tools to the employee.
  • With the employee’s consent, the amount of a payroll error that benefited the employee or a cash advance paid to an employee may be deducted from wages (but the deduction cannot include any amount for interest, service charge, or fee).
  • With the employee’s written authorization, the minimum amount payable by the employer for an offence committed by the employee that is being prosecuted against the employer for a photo radar or red light camera ticket may be deducted from wages.

When am I entitled to a leave of absence?

The ESC provides for a variety of leaves of absences that are available to employees should different circumstances arise in their lives. These are unpaid leaves of absence. The purpose of including the leaves in the ESC is to protect the rights of workers to take necessary time away from work while ensuring they will have a job to return to after their absence from the workplace. 

The leaves of absence in the ESC include bereavement, compassionate care, family responsibility (including the health of the employee), interpersonal violence, critical illness, serious injury or illness, maternity and parental leaves. The lengths of time available as protected leaves vary depending on the type of leave being taken. 

In Manitoba, there is also a new public health emergency leave. This is a temporary measure in the ESC that provides employees with job-protected leave related to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is available where an employee is unable to work due to circumstances related to the pandemic, such as a public health requirement to quarantine or providing care to a family member due to school or daycare closures, and is available for the length of time the circumstance persists. 

Significantly, the ESC prohibits employers from requiring a doctor’s note to support an employee’s eligibility for public health emergency leave or other protected leaves available under the ESC. This means that employees taking family responsibility leave for their own health cannot be mandated by their employer to provide a doctor’s note. 

Am I entitled to severance pay?

The term “severance” is often used in the context of an employee losing their job. You may have also heard about employers being obligated to pay “severance” under employment standards legislation. However, this term has no meaning under the ESC. Unlike other employment standards legislation, such as in Ontario, there is no obligation on Manitoba employers to provide severance pay on termination of employment. The requirement in the ESC is to provide notice of termination, or pay in lieu of notice, in accordance with the minimum amount of notice set out in the ESC. 

Employers or lawyers in Manitoba may still refer to offering or negotiating a “severance” package. That typically refers to a package or pay-out offered by an employer at the time of termination to satisfy its obligation, under the common law, to provide reasonable notice of termination. (For more information on the meaning of common law reasonable notice, see: “What is reasonable notice?”). Common law reasonable notice is an amount beyond the minimum required under the ESC that is intended to help bridge an employee from their old job to a new position. The question of whether you may be entitled to common law reasonable notice depends on the terms of your employment contract. However, the rights provided on termination under the ESC do not include a separate right to severance pay.

Conclusion 

The ESC establishes important rights for workers. It is Manitoba-specific legislation that contains unique standards, limits, and entitlements. Employees should be aware of the specifics of the rights and responsibilities in the ESC. A Manitoba employment lawyer can help address questions or concerns workers may have about whether the requirements of the ESC are being met by their employer. 

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

Is My Termination Clause Invalid? Conflicting Case Law In The Ontario Courts

Is My Termination Clause Invalid Conflicting Case Law In The Ontario Courts
Recent decisions in the Ontario courts have created uncertainty for Ontario workers
as to whether the termination clauses in their contracts are valid or not. Many
employment contracts contain a sentence that reads something like this:

c) Termination by the Company for Just Cause The Company has the
right, at any time and without notice, to terminate your employment under
this Agreement for just cause.

Under this provision, if the employer has “just cause” to terminate the employee,
they can be terminated immediately, without any right to notice or pay in lieu of
notice.

This type of provision has been found void because it violates the Employment
Standards Act (ESA). The problem arises from the different standards for
terminating someone’s employment for cause under the common law and under the
ESA. Under the common law, employers may terminate without notice if they have
just cause, a concept which is broader than just wilful misconduct, and can
include things like prolonged incompetence. The ESA, on the other hand, only
permits termination without notice for wilful misconduct, sometimes described as
being bad on purpose.”

So, the problem with the termination provision above is that it allows the employer
to terminate an employee, without any notice (even the limited right to notice
under the ESA), for conduct that wouldn’t rise to the level of wilful misconduct, and
therefore violates the ESA. For this reason, Courts have found this type of clause to
be void.

The Court of Appeal went even further in Waksdale, a decision released last
summer, ruling that, if the termination for cause provision is invalid, the whole
termination provision is invalid. (To learn more about that decision, read our blog
about it here). What this means is that, even if an employee is terminated without
cause, the fact that their “just cause” provision was invalid means the whole
termination clause is invalid. This then entitles the terminated employee to receive
payinlieu of common law notice, which is generally higher than notice under the
ESA.


While Ontario workers may have hoped Waksdale settled this area of the law, more
disagreements have arisen among Ontario judges about whether this analysis
applies in the same way to all employees, or if it is only meant to protect more
vulnerable parties. In a case released in September, the Court rejected the idea
that a “just cause” provision should always be interpreted as violating the ESA.
Justice Dunphy reasoned that, in this case, the plaintiff was a sophisticated party,
being hired to perform a senior role, with a high salary. She received legal advice

and the parties specifically negotiated the termination clause. He concluded that her
contract provided her a greater benefit than the ESA. Because there was no
disparity in bargaining power, there was no reason why the provision should be
invalid.

But in a case released in October, the Court reached the opposite conclusion. The
contract of employment was negotiated together with a business deal. The
employee was a sophisticated party and was represented by a lawyer when
negotiating the contract.

Despite the fact that there was no significant imbalance of power, the Court found
“no compelling reason” why the employer should be able to rely on a termination
provision that did not comply with the ESA. Justice Black recognized the broader
impact of ensuring that contracts comply with the ESA:

Further, in my view the goal that employers be encouraged to draft clauses
that comply with the ESA trumps the suggestion that Livshin may have been
better able than many or most employees to recognize the potential peril.
These two conflicting decisions on a similar question, released one month apart,
have introduced greater uncertainty into the interpretation of employment contracts
in Ontario.
If you have questions or concerns about the how this case law may apply to the
termination clause in your employment contract, we are here to help. Please call
6135672901 or email info@ravenlaw.com to consult one of our experienced
employment lawyers.

Jessica Greenwood to Present on Employment Issues During COVID-19

Jessica Greenwood to Present on Employment Issues During COVID-19
On September 24, 2021, Jessica Greenwood will be speaking at the Kingston and the Thousand Islands Legal Conference. Jessica will be part of a panel addressing employment issues in the face of COVID-19, focusing particularly on Infectious Disease Emergency Leave and vaccines.
The conference is being held virtually again this year. For more information or to register, please visit the conference website.