Brittany Taylor - Articles & Videos

In a recent decision, Geopro Consulting Ltd v. Nyland, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down an employer’s lawsuit against a former employee who had reported the company to its professional regulator, triggering an investigation. The case serves as a powerful reminder of the robust protections afforded to individuals who share information with professional regulators, and highlights the risks of pursuing frivolous claims against former employees.

In the recent decision of Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services, the Divisional Court granted an applicant’s request for judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (the “HRTO“) which dismissed his application as being outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction.

As readers of our blog will be aware, employment lawyers have been anticipating the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s hearing of two notable 2025 cases, Baker v Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc. and Li v Wayfair Canada ULC, which address the enforceability of termination clauses. The appeals, originally set to be heard on January 16, 2026, have been adjourned to March 25, 2026, where they will be heard simultaneously with an undisclosed third matter.

When an employee commences a claim against their employer, or vice-versa, the proper forum in which to bring the lawsuit is an important consideration. For civil claims, this is typically determined by the type of relief sought and the value of the damages being claimed.

In Ontario, the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction in any action for the payment of money or for the recovery of possession of personal property where the amount claimed does not exceed an amount prescribed by regulation. Currently, this limit is set at $35,000.00. Claims above this amount are brought to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

As employment lawyers, we frequently caution our clients that determining the appropriate common law notice period for a dismissed employee is “more of an art than a science”. Indeed, while we are familiar with the core relevant factors that courts will consider – such as an employee’s age, length of service, type of position, etc. – there is no formula that can be used to predict this outcome with certainty.

Although the pandemic might seem far in the past, we are still seeing the outcome of cases brought forward on issues that arose during this tumultuous period. In a recent decision out of Alberta, the court ruled that an employer had wrongfully dismissed an employee who refused to comply with the employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy on religious grounds.

As we approach an election, it’s important that employers understand their obligations and employees understand their rights for voting.

Even with an Excess Hours of Work Agreement, there are limits on how many hours an employee can be required to work.

The Ontario government has provided clarification on a few notable changes introduced in Bill 190 and earlier legislative updates.