Rudner Law Blog

One of the first questions clients often ask when considering litigation is: “If I win, will the other side have to pay my legal fees?” The short answer is sometimes, but rarely all your legal fees.

On August 7, 2026, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its highly anticipated decision in Wigdor v. Facebook Canada Ltd. This decision makes it clear that termination provisions in Restricted Stock Unit (“RSU”) agreements will not be enforceable if they attempt to contract out of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”), including by requiring immediate forfeiture on termination and thereby altering a “term or condition of employment” during the statutory notice period.

We always caution our clients that employment law is constantly changing. Just when you think the law on an issue is settled, a decision comes along that turns back the clock. That is exactly what happened in the recent Ontario Superior Court decision Wilsher v. Olympic Wholesale (“Wilsher”).

For both employers and workers, understanding the true nature of a working relationship—and the enforceable limits of an employment or contractor agreement—is critical. A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Salina v. Investors Group Financial Services Inc., serves as an important reminder that simply labeling a worker as an “independent contractor” will not shield a company from common law notice obligations if this does not reflect the reality of the relationship.

In most industries, when a new company takes over a contract, it has no obligation to hire the outgoing provider’s employees or assume liability for their severance. The employment relationship remains with the original employer. The building services sector operates differently.

As we often see in litigation, doubling down on a losing hand doesn’t just waste time, it can cost a lot of money. In the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Adelman v. IBM Canada Limited (“Adelman”), the employee successfully sued for wrongful dismissal, securing $682,151.18 in damages.

When an employee requests time off for medical reasons, employers are often left wondering how much medical information they are entitled to request and what their accommodation obligations are. A recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “HRTO”) highlights the limitations of vague medical notes and reinforces that employees must establish that they have a protected right under the Human Rights Code (the “Code”) in order to be entitled to accommodation.

When a defendant is served with a Statement of Claim, they cannot simply put it aside and hope for the best. Failing to respond can result in the defendant being noted in default, which means the lawsuit may proceed without their participation and could ultimately lead to an expensive judgment and public decision against them.

On April 20, 2026, Ontario introduced its latest omnibus legislation amending various employment related legislation: Bill 105, Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act, 2026. As of May 4, 2026, Bill 105 is in the Second Reading stage and has been referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. If passed, Bill 105 will implement a number of changes including to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”) and the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “OHSA”), and enact new legislation applicable to talent agencies and entertainment industry workers.

The duty to mitigate requires an employee who has been wrongfully dismissed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate their damages (i.e.: lost employment income) by finding comparable employment. The key words here are reasonable and comparable. Employees are not expected to make finding new work their new full time job. Likewise, employees are not expected to go and find just any job; a software engineer does not have to accept a line-cook position. The catch is that once an employee accepts a new job – comparable or not – every dollar earned during their notice period is deducted from any award they ultimately receive.

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.