Geoffrey Lowe - Articles & Videos

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.

The recent decision in Jarvis v The Toronto-Dominion Bank provides some clarity on what redactions a court will permit – and what information an employer needs to disclose.

At law, a resignation is not effective unless the employee’s intentions are “clear and unequivocal”, and the employer has accepted the employee’s resignation. While this appears simple, in practice this rule has been expanded

If enacted, the Working for Workers Five Act will revise several Ontario employment laws, including the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.