Ontario, Canada Court Awards Employee Longer Reasonable Notice Period Due to Pandemic s Impact | Littler jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Starting in 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has rendered a series of decisions that have progressed from the imposition of a duty of good faith and fair dealing on the employer, at the time of an employee’s dismissal, towards a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the overall employment relationship.
In 1997, the SCC decided in the wrongful dismissal case of
Wallace v. United Grain
Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 SCR 701, that, at a minimum, the employer owed a duty of good faith and fair dealing to the employee at the time of dismissal and explained its rationale as follows:
Fraser v Canada, 2018 FCA 223, as discussed in our
.
Ms. Fraser, Ms. Fox and Ms. Pilgrim (Claimants) were three retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) who took maternity leave in the 1990s. Upon returning to full-time service, they experienced difficulties balancing their work obligations with childcare responsibilities. These difficulties caused Ms. Fox to retire from the RCMP in 1994 and resulted in Ms. Fraser taking unpaid leave in 1997. At the time, the RCMP did not permit regular members to work part-time. In December 1997, the RCMP introduced a job-sharing program in which multiple RCMP members could split the responsibilities of one full-time position, allowing each member to work fewer hours than a full-time employee. The Claimants enrolled in the job-sharing program along with 137 other RCMP members between 1997 and 2011. Most participants were women with children. From 2010 to 2014, all RCMP members who job-shared were women, and most of them cited c
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
As we entered a new decade in 2020, Canada saw significant
developments in labour and employment law, some of which related to
COVID-19. This Insight provides an overview of 14 key 2020
developments, with links to more detailed articles and
commentary:
Ontario Superior Court recognized a new invasion of
privacy tort: publicity which places the plaintiff in a false
light in the public eye.
The recognition by Ontario s Superior Court of the new false light privacy tort in a family law case,
, was significant to employers. The
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
As we entered a new decade in 2020, Canada saw significant developments in labour and employment law, some of which related to COVID-19. This Insight provides an overview of 14 key 2020 developments, with links to more detailed articles and commentary:
Ontario Superior Court recognized a new invasion of privacy tort: “publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye.”
The recognition by Ontario’s Superior Court of the new “false light” privacy tort in a family law case,
, was significant to employers. The decision is a caution for employers that before they disseminate information about people to the public, including on the Internet, they must ensure that it will not portray the person in a false light (