Employment Contracts - Articles & Videos

An employee’s refusal to get vaccinated constituted frustration of contract in Croke v VuPoint System Ltd.

A recent decision from British Columbia reminds us that even the most bulletproof termination clauses can be rendered unenforceable when the termination is implemented wrongly.

A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal examined the intersection of two areas of employment law: termination clauses and fixed-term contracts.

For some time now, it has been clear that Ontario courts are taking a no-nonsense approach to the interpretation of termination clauses.

A recent unpublished decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that simply saying that the employer can implement a without cause dismissal at its “sole discretion” and “at any time” is sufficient.

In most industries, there is no rule requiring new service providers to hire the employees of previous providers, and any severance obligations are the responsibility of the company that acted as the employer.  However, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and Ontario Regulation 287/01 contain special rules for employees of building services providers.

What happens if someone is in jail and can’t make it to work? Can they be fired? Or is their contract of employment frustrated? Or does the employer have to keep their job open for them?

Significant changes to the Canada Labour Code are taking effect as of February 1st, 2024 which will impact federally regulated employers and employees.

Terminating a fixed term contract can result in significant liability for a company, even when that contract is for an independent contractor rather than an employee.

The recent Court of Appeal decisions of Maynard v. Johnson Controls Canada LP and Nader v. University Health Network suggest that “salary” doesn’t mean base pay alone, and that the employer could be liable for other elements of compensation, including bonus payments.