Rudner Law Blog

A question we are frequently asked is whether psychotherapists can solicit their employer’s clients based on their professional obligations. The answer depends on which regulatory college governs the practitioner, as multiple colleges authorize members to practice psychotherapy in Ontario, and their rules differ significantly.

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.

Our clients often ask what is the point of having a properly drafted employment contract? As they say, “the outcome of a claim for wrongful dismissal cannot be that bad; everyone knows that the most an employee might receive is a month per year of service, and sometimes that is not that much”, right? The reality is much different.

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.

An employee earns a substantial amount of money each year in variable bonuses. Are they entitled to that bonus as part of their severance? If so, how do you assess what they should get when the amounts varied greatly from year to year?

If you’ve been reading our blog, you have seen our 2025 Year in Review (Part 1, Part 2), where we covered the most notable cases, legislative updates, and HR trends from the past year. If it felt like a lot of information, that’s because it is!

As we often say, it is important to stay up to date as the laws evolve. It is equally important to take those developments into account and ensure that you have a set of best practices that are in place and up to date.

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.

Welcome to Part Two of our year in review. Employment law continues to evolve at a remarkable pace, often struggling to catch up with social changes. As we hinted in Part One, in Ontario this evolution is frequently packaged with the government’s Working for Workers Acts, which has now reached its seventh version. In Part Two, we dive into legislative updates across Canada and discuss what to expect in 2026.

Welcome to Part One of our 2025 Employment Law Year in Review. The Canadian employment law landscape remains highly uncertain, driven by continuous legislative evolution (like Ontario’s Working for Workers Act) and dramatic shifts in case law.

If you are a therapist planning to launch your own practice, or you operate a group practice worried about client loss, the key question is the same: Are these non-solicitation clauses actually enforceable?

As we wrap up 2025, employment lawyers have circled January 16, 2026 on their calendars. This is the date when the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “ONCA”) will hear the appeals in the Baker v Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc. (“Baker”), and in Li v Wayfair Canada ULC (“Li”) decisions, two of 2025’s notable termination clause decisions.

If you thought the Driver Inc. controversy was just background noise in the trucking industry, think again. The government is stepping up enforcement in a big way, and businesses that have turned a blind eye to worker misclassification could soon find themselves in the hot seat — facing hefty fines, back payments, and legal exposure. Let’s be clear: this isn’t just a “trucking problem.” It’s a worker misclassification problem, and it’s about to land squarely on the desks of employers and workers alike.