Geoffrey Lowe - Articles & Videos

We often tell our clients that the reasonable notice period is a bridge to another role, not a windfall for a dismissed employee. Notice is meant to support an employee until they find a job, and its length is based on the Court’s estimation of how long it will take the employee to do so.

One of your employees has really done it this time. This is not the first time, and you warned the employee that a repeat of this behaviour may result in their dismissal for cause. So, you dismiss the employee for cause. The employee will be gone but the impact of their mistake remains. Can you recoup these funds from the employee, either by withholding the outstanding amount from the employee’s final paycheque or by suing the employee?

In our last update, we outlined the new changes to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”) and the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “OHSA”), which were set to take effect on July 1, 2025 to the ESA and on January 1, 2026 to the OHSA. Since that last update, there has been further updates to the Canadian employment and labour law landscape.

An employee dismissal creates a two-way street of obligations. The employer is required to provide the employee with reasonable notice…

Substance abuse is a disability under human rights law, requiring the employer to accommodate an employee to the point of undue hardship.

How can you stop a former employee from acting in a way that harms your company? Apart from threatening to sue the employee for damages, is there a way to have the Court tell the employee to stop doing something?

Picture it: your employment comes to an end. You believe you are owed money. You threaten to reveal secrets that would hurt the company’s reputation. You’re sued for defamation. You argue that the information is in the public interest. Et voila, SLAPP.

Nearly everyone has used a rideshare app to get where they need to go or a food delivery app to get something delivered. Few of us ever consider the work arrangement of the person delivering us or our food to the destination.

A further expansion to the concept of damages recently happened in Khanom v. Idealogic PDS Inc., where damages were rewarded for “inconvenience” resulting from the employer’s conduct.

A PIP can help an employee pull themselves out of a tailspin, but we also see employers use it as code for papering a file to justify dismissal for cause.