For many, having a job is an essential part of their life, well-being, and mental health. Unemployment, on the contrary, is one of the most frustrating experiences, with more significant psychological consequences. If you’ve recently been fired, our Hamilton employment lawyers understand what you are going through. We’ve represented thousands of wrongful dismissal victims over the past 20 years who have been fired and lost their jobs.
Our Hamilton employment lawyers have seen firsthand how disruptive job loss is. It’s incredibly stressful for individuals and their families. It is often associated with subsequent unemployment, economic crisis, long-term earnings losses, oftentimes lower job quality, declines in psychological and physical well-being, loss of psychosocial assets, social withdrawal, family disruption, and lower levels of overall well-being. Both the psychological and psychosocial impact of sudden unemployment after long years of service can be brutally challenging and take years for individuals to overcome
Our Hamilton employment lawyers believe that wrongly terminated employees are victims who deserve representation to get what they are owed and not what their employer “wants” them to have. If you are a terminated employee, you have the right to be treated fairly. You have the right to be treated with respect. You’ve given years to your company, only to be fired without consideration.
If you’ve been fired, it’s important that you are not forced into making a decision too soon. You must be afforded the time to collect your thoughts and seek the advice of a qualified Hamilton employment lawyer. Matt Lalande is a Hamilton Employment Lawyer with extensive experience representing employees who have been unfairly or wrongfully terminated. We have negotiated thousands of severance packages and have litigated many employment law and wrongful dismissal matters. Our firm offers free employment lawyer consultations for employees who have been terminated and lost their jobs, and we would be happy to talk to you about your situation.
Call us today at 905-333-8888 or email us confidentially through our website and we would be happy to get back to you. You also have the option of chatting live with our chat operator 24/7 – and she will provide us with the basic details of your situation so that we can call or email you back without delay.
“How do I find a Hamilton employment lawyer near me?” is a very common question. It can be an intimidating and challenging process, especially if you’ve never had to hire a lawyer before. The emotional strain of losing your job and the complexity of legal terms and processes can make the whole ordeal feel stressful and overwhelming.
However, it is crucial to take action quickly to protect your rights. Start by researching Hamilton employment lawyers in your area; focus on those specializing in wrongful termination litigation. Look for client reviews or ask for recommendations from friends or family.
Some lawyers offer free initial consultations, while some do not. If you cannot afford the cost of initial consultations, then focus on those who offer free consultations. Do not be afraid to reach out and schedule a meeting. Prepare questions to ask the Hamilton employment lawyer about their experience, fees, and approach to situations like yours.
Legal fees can be a concern, particularly when facing unemployment. The news is that some Hamilton employment lawyers work on a contingency basis, meaning they only get paid if you win the case. This is how we work at Lalande Lawyers; we never charge upfront fees.
We only charge legal fees at the end of your case. Remember, it’s normal to feel daunted by this process, but our Hamilton employment lawyers are here to assist you, and we can guide you through the complexities of employment law. Seeking professional legal help from our Hamilton employment lawyers will give you the best chance of achieving an optimal outcome and securing the compensation you’re entitled to.
Generally, employers want to minimize risk and close their books for their own sake. This is why they try to put “timelines” on your decision to accept their “enhanced severance” or anything over and above minimum limits.
What’s important to understand is that no matter what your employer decides to do, you have two full years from the date of your termination to file suit for wrongful dismissal damages. If you live in southern Ontario, call our Hamilton employment lawyer, Matt Lalande, to discuss any time limitations you’ve been given regarding your severance package.
Yes – if you’ve been terminated, then it’s vital that you hire a Hamilton employment lawyer with relevant experience. Hiring a Hamilton employment lawyer specializing in employment law is crucial as this area of law is complex and requires specific expertise.
Employment lawyers have a deep understanding of workplace rights, labour regulations, and wrongful termination claims. They know how to navigate these cases’ often intricate legal processes. Hiring a lawyer who does not specialize in employment law can lead to misunderstandings of legal rights, misapplication of relevant laws, and, ultimately, a less favourable outcome.
A specialist will be better equipped to assess your unique situation, provide informed legal advice, and advocate for your best interests. In a situation as serious and life-altering as losing your job, it’s vital to have a Hamilton employment lawyer specializing in employment law on your side to ensure your rights are protected and enforced.
In Ontario, employers have the right to terminate any of their employees without reason, provided that they give appropriate notice. This means that if you have been unfairly terminated, your employer will need to either provide you with advanced, reasonable notice of your termination or a cash payment to you in place of notice.
There are three main areas of termination entitlement that your employer may be required to provide you at the time of your termination:
In Ontario, an employer has the full and total right to terminate a contract of employment for indefinite hiring if the employer gives the employee appropriate notice of their termination.
In Ontario, the Ministry of Labour prescribes minimum standards concerning what employers must comply with. These minimum standards address employer obligations, including pregnancy and parental leave, wages, work hours, overtime, and termination.
Ontario’s Employment Standards Act also mandates that employers are not to terminate an employee’s employment unless they pay the employee termination pay equal to the regular wages they would have earned during the notice period. The employer must continue to provide the employee’s benefits, including pension, during the statutory notice period.
Remember, the rules under the Ontario Employment Standards Act regarding termination and severance pay are an employer’s minimum requirements. You may have greater rights that exceed minimum payments. Our Hamilton employment lawyers can help you understand what these rights may be and if filing a lawsuit is the best course of action.
The following specifies the amount of notice required under the Employment Standards Act:
It is essential to understand that termination pay is an amount paid by an employer pursuant to minimum standards legislation—it is not severance pay or compensation for wrongful dismissal. If you’re confused about the difference, contact our Hamilton wrongful termination lawyers for clarity.
Severance pay seems to be a “catch-all” term for termination pay, but it is, in fact, something different.
Severance pay is a statutory payment that the employer makes upon termination of an employee, in addition to any statutory individual notice of termination and group termination notice (or pay in lieu of such notice). Where notice of termination is meant to allow an employee to prepare for an upcoming termination and take measures to seek alternative employment, severance pay is meant to compensate for the investment of the employee’s long service with the employer’s business.
Severance in Ontario only applies in certain circumstances. For example, when an employer has a payroll of 2.5 million or more or, irrespective of annual payroll, when fifty or more employees are terminated in a period of six months or less because of a permanent discontinuance of all or part of the business.
To be eligible for severance pay in Hamilton, employees must also have worked for an employer for at least five years. Severance pay is calculated using a simple formula: one week of regular wages for each year of employment plus a pro-rated amount for any partial year of service.
In every non-unionized employment relationship, an employer has an implied common law obligation to give the employee reasonable notice of its intention to terminate the employment relationship unless there is just cause for termination.
The reasonable notice period is in addition to, but includes, the minimum statutory termination notice period and the period of time covered by statutory severance pay.
Failure to provide adequate reasonable notice can expose the employer to damages in a wrongful dismissal action for the loss of salary and benefits an employee would have received during the period of reasonable notice.
The primary purpose of reasonable notice of your termination is to give you, as the employee, an opportunity and a reasonable period of time to search for other employment. The notice period is not necessarily equivalent to the period required to find new employment.
There are two steps to determine the employer’s potential liability for reasonable notice:
The first step is to “determine” the employee’s reasonable notice period. There is no specific method or particular “rule of thumb” for calculating a reasonable notice period, as it’s done on a case-by-case basis. Thus, the reasonable notice period is influenced several factors:
The second step is to calculate your damages over the reasonable notice period. To determine the financial value of your losses, we would:
Our Hamilton employment lawyers will demand what is owed to you by law – an amount that most accurately reflects what you would have earned over the applicable notice period.
Generally, your employer can give you notice in a few different ways.
An employer will consider things like the reasons for dismissal, the amount of potential liability your employer faces, and the terms of the employment contract. Based on these an employer may structure a termination package as working notice, a lump-sum payment, or a salary continuance.
This is the most common type of termination pay, particularly with higher income individuals or executives. Salary continuance involves an employer notifying an employee that they are terminated but that termination will occur on a certain date in the future.
However, the employee will not remain in the workplace. The employer will continue to pay the employee until the date of termination, which will likely satisfy the employer’s notice of termination requirment.
In most salary continuance scenarios, a clawback clause will be required. A clawback clause is a provision in a salary continuance package which provides that an employee will be paid a lump sum payout (normally 50% of what is owed) of the balance of the salary continuance when the employee becomes unemployed.
These types of agreements are beneficial to both the employee and the employer. If the employee finds work, he or she receives a 50% windfall from the accident employer. From the employer’s standpoint, financial exposure is reduced.
If salary continuance is offered and accepted as the severance arrangement, deductions for both employment insurance premiums and CPP contributions must be continued since the employer-employee relationship technically continues until the cessation of salary payments.
You should then be provided with your record of employment, typically within five days of your last day of work.
An employer could provide your severance in a lump sum payout to satisfy its notice obligations. A payout for payment in lieu of notice is considered compensation for breach of the implied obligation to provide proper notice of termination.
Lump-sum packages are typically structured so that the employee receives a fixed sum, with no reduction for mitigation income earned during the notice period. Salary continuance packages can be structured so that the payments are reduced when the employee earns mitigation income.
Working notice is similar to salary continuance, the difference being that you will remain at your place of employment and continue your job until your date of termination. Working notice is rarely the perfect solution, given that no employee wants to work under a cloud of dismissal.
Our Hamilton employment lawyers always suggest to employers that an employee be given a clean break. This allows the employee time to move on and find alternate equitable employment.
If you’ve been fired, you need to know if you’re being paid not only the appropriate amount of severance required by law but also the severance you deserve. Remember, employers in Ontario have the full right to terminate a contract of employment of indefinite hiring if the employer provides or pays the employee appropriate notice or severance pay in lieu of notice of termination.
However, terminated employees also have rights. Our Hamilton employment lawyers will ensure you’re not taken advantage of or given less than you’re owed.
In Ontario, there is statutory minimum notice that must be provided—and an employer cannot contract itself out of it. There is also common law notice, which is termination pay or payment in lieu of notice and is significantly more than the prescribed statutory minimum notice.
Severance pay is often confused with termination pay, but they are different. Severance in Ontario only applies in certain circumstances; our Hamilton employment lawyers can help you understand whether you’re owed severance.
An employer has two options when providing an employee with reasonable notice of their termination. The employer can either require the employee to continue working until their termination or provide the employee with payment in lieu of that notice.
You are entitled to either payment in lieu of notice (what many call severance), reasonable notice, or a combination of notice and payment adding up to the proper period of notice. Therefore, if the employer fails to give the employee reasonable notice of termination, the employee can bring a wrongful dismissal action for breach of that implied term.
In a wrongful dismissal case, the employee must establish that they are entitled to a particular form of compensation during the notice period and the financial value of their damages. Mitigation income and other collateral benefits may be deducted from this loss figure.
Overall, the various terms and requirements can be confusing, especially for a recently terminated employee. Our Hamilton employment lawyers will explain these things, help you understand your rights, and ensure you receive the notice, severance, and payments you are entitled to.
Our Hamilton employment lawyers help ensure that your employee rights are protected and upheld. We do so by offering a variety of services related to employment and termination:
If you have been recently terminated, you should review your termination letter with the help of an experienced Hamilton employment lawyer. This will ensure you are not signing away your rights to any severance you’re entitled to. Other situations that call for review include an employer removing your seniority, sale of the business, the business owner retiring, forced vacation, and unilateral changes to your employment contract that you do not agree with.
Have you recently been hired? Our Hamilton employment lawyers recommend that you have your contract reviewed by a legal professional before starting a new job. If things go sour, this can save you stress, frustration, and expenses later.
You should have things like non-compete or non-solicitation clauses, termination clauses or severance amounts, and discretionary bonus clauses reviewed by a lawyer experienced with employment issues.
It is usually implied within the employment relationship that the employer may terminate employment if they have a good reason. If you have been fired for cause, talk to a Hamilton employment lawyer to make sure the termination is legal. You may not be getting what you are entitled to. The onus to prove they have fired for cause is very high for employers.
Sometimes, an employer’s conduct may display the intention to no longer be bound by the employment contract. This can include a breach of the employment contract or a substantial change to the employment terms.
When this happens, the employee has a choice. They can either accept the conduct or changes made by the employer or treat them as a repudiation of the contract, hence suing for constructive dismissal.
Although many people interchange the two, severance pay is distinct from termination pay. Severance pay is money paid to an employee by an employer under certain conditions specified by the Employment Standards Act. If you’re unsure what severance pay you are or are not entitled to, our Hamilton employment lawyers will review the terms with you and determine your eligibility.
Termination pay is the minimum set out by the Employment Standards Act, though many employees are not initially offered what they are entitled to. Our Hamilton employment lawyers will help you understand the minimum termination pay required by your employer, and help you ensure you’re getting what you’re owed.
Payment in lieu of notice is different from termination pay. Payment in Lieu of Notice is otherwise called common law notice. The Employment Standards Act provides the minimum amount of notice. In some cases, there is also the common law notice period requirement, resulting in enhanced termination pay depending on certain conditions. Our Hamilton employment lawyers will help you understand what you’re entitled to based on your circumstances.
Severance packages can be negotiated, but this should only be done with the assistance of an experienced Hamilton employment lawyer. Never try to negotiate your own severance package.
Typically, once your employer has determined its liability, and how it will structure the termination package, a termination letter is drafted and will be presented to you at the termination meeting. With the assistance of an experienced Hamilton employment lawyer, the contents of the termination package are typically resolved by one of the following:
Negotiations for an enhanced termination package are usually commenced through a demand letter from the employee’s legal counsel. A member of the employer’s human resources team will usually respond to the individual employee’s request with a letter that is ghostwritten by the employer’s in-house or external legal counsel.
Typically, your employer’s response will vary depending upon the terms disputed, the reasonableness of the employer’s initial offer and the circumstances surrounding the termination. For example, we may demand such things on our client’s behalf as:
If there are negotiations, the contents of a termination settlement agreement are typically summarized in the correspondence between legal counsel (either before or after litigation is commenced) or in formal minutes of settlement.
If you’ve been terminated, it’s important that you seek the advice of a qualified Hamilton employment lawyer today. Do not sign anything and do not try to negotiate a severance package on your own. Our Hamilton employment lawyers will help you fully understand what you’re owed, and we’ll pursue the maximum compensation we can for your circumstances.
Unexpectedly, losing a job is stressful enough; you don’t need to be further overwhelmed by the complexity of the legal process. We’ll walk you through the process, ensure your rights are protected every step of the way, and secure the payments and compensation you’re entitled to.
Please call us today no matter where you are in Ontario at 1-844-LALANDE or local in the Hamilton/GTA/Niagara Region at 905-333-8888 or fill in a contact form through our website. We would be happy to speak to you about your termination.
We Can Help. Contact us 24/7
start your case905-333-8888VOTED BEST LAWYERS IN CANADA 2018, 2019 & 2020
Yes, in Ontario (and Canada), unless an employee acts in a manner that would constitute “just cause” for termination (which is a narrow category of behaviour) or the employment relationship is for a fixed term, the employer is obligated to provide the employee with either advance notice of termination or compensation in lieu of that notice.
Many employers choose to pay out the notice period because it is often undesirable and potentially risky to have an employee continue to work after receiving notice of termination. The employer has the choice of asking the employee to work through the notice period or to pay compensation in lieu of such notice.
While unionized and non-unionized employees may be entitled to the minimum statutory notice and severance pay, common law reasonable notice is available to non-unionized employees but not to unionized employees who have their employment governed by a collective agreement.
There may be three types of notices that the employer must give the employee at the time of termination of employment:
1) Statutory minimum termination notice (section 54-62, ESA)
2) Statutory minimum severance pay (section 64, ESA) and;
3) Common law reasonable notice.
Alternatively, the parties may contract for a set period of notice, provided that period is not less than the statutory minimum requirements, which cannot be contracted out of.
At common law, the notice periods that have been held to be reasonable have traditionally been much longer than the minimum standard termination notice period, sometimes greater than 24 months of notice. Unless the employment contract limits the notice period to the statutory minimum or to another amount that is greater than the statutory minimum, the employer must provide compensation for the common law notice period. In determining reasonable notice under the common law, the courts consider such factors as the:
1) Age of employee.
2) Length of service.
3) Character of the position, including the degree of responsibility and the employee’s level of training and education and
4) The availability of similar employment, having regard to the experience, training and qualifications of the employee.
While the employer cannot contract out of statutory minimums of the ESA, contracts can be used to limit or exclude common law concepts that might apply. For example, the contract may:
1) Specify that certain acts will constitute just cause or willful misconduct, which broadens the common law definitions of these concepts and;
2) Indicate what period of notice will be given, how payment on termination will be structured and how various types of incentive compensation will be dealt with on termination.
Unless the employee’s duty to mitigate is outlined in the termination provisions of the employment contract, mitigation will not apply to the termination provision amounts.
An employer is not required to give common law reasonable notice of termination if there is just cause for dismissal of the employee. “Just cause” refers to a situation where the employee acts in a manner that is a repudiation of the employment contract. Whether the employee’s conduct constitutes just cause depends on the specific fact situation and context. Examples of behaviour that may amount to just cause include:
– Insubordination
– Insolence
– Unreasonable or unexplained absenteeism
– Intoxication or
– Sexual harassment or bullying behaviour.
The meaning of just cause is fluid and depends on many situational factors. If the misconduct is severe, the employer may have a case for immediate, summary dismissal. However, where the misconduct is minor or moderate and capable of correction, the employer may have a duty to engage in progressive discipline before terminating the employee for just cause. A termination for just cause should not take an employee by surprise. The employee should not be left to guess whether the true cause for termination was discriminatory.
An employer can terminate the employment relationship expressly or constructively through its conduct. A constructive dismissal occurs where the employer has not informed the employee outright that employment is at an end but acts in a way that demonstrates it no longer intends to be bound by the employment contract.
In every non-unionized employment relationship, the employer has an implied common law obligation to give the employee reasonable notice of its intention to terminate the employment relationship unless there is just cause for termination. If the employer fails to give the employee reasonable notice of termination, the employee can bring a wrongful dismissal action for breach of that implied term.
Aggravated damages are compensatory and awarded against an employer who engages in conduct that is unfair or is in bad faith. There is no real distinction between aggravated damages and moral damages. Damages are attributable to the conduct in the manner of termination: HondaCanada Inc. v. Keays,2008 SCC 39, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362.
The purpose of providing reasonable notice is to allow the employee a period of time in which to secure alternative employment.
The reasonable notice period has been generally capped at a rough upper limit of 24 months of notice, with the court awarding above 24 months if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
For example, in the case of Dawe v. Equitable Life Insurance Company, 2018 CarswellOnt 8419 (Ont. S.C.J.) a 62-year-old senior vice president with 37 years of service was awarded 30 months of notice. The court would have awarded 36 months on the basis that no comparable employment was available; however, only 30 months of notice was claimed.
Your employer is obligated to provide you reasonable notice of your termination – or in the alternative – payment in lieu of such notice. If your employer has not provided you with reasonable notice OR payment in lieu of notice, or your employer has provided inappropriate notice then you may in fact have a claim for wrongful dismissal.
This approach has been rejected by the appeal courts as it overemphasizes the length of service factor and undermines the flexibility of the Bardal analysis. The rule of thumb approach to reasonable notice also has little correlation to reality. Short-term employees may well receive reasonable notice in excess of a month per year of service (sometimes up to four or five months per year of service), and longer-term employees (over 20 years) tend to receive less than a month per year of service.
The state of the law at present is that the appropriate range for reasonable notice has no limit or “cap.”
Abrahim v. Sliwin, 2012 ONSC 6295 (CanLII)at paragraph 24, cites how the “character” of the employment, in other words, greater notice for highly skilled positions and less notice for clerical or unskilled work, is now “largely irrelevant”: citing Love v. Acuity Investment Management Inc. (2011), 2011 ONCA 130 (CanLII), 89 C.C.E.L. (3d) 157 (Ont.C.A).
The employer’s obligation to provide the employee with reasonable notice of termination does not apply where:
-The employee resigns his employment;
-The employment relationship is frustrated;
-There is just cause for termination of employment;
-The employment contract contains a valid term providing for the amount of notice to be given in the event of termination or
-The employment contract is for a fixed term.
A dependent contractor are workers who cannot be considered employees, but who are economically dependent on a single client company. Dependent contractors are similar to employees in that they are entitled to reasonable notice of the termination of the working relationship, in recognition of their economic dependence on a single employer. They can be awarded notice periods that are similar to those given to employees.
No, independent contractors are not entitled to common law reasonable notice of termination.
There are two steps to determining the employer’s liability for reasonable notice:
First, the employer must determine the period of reasonable notice. There is no definitive catalogue or list that will guide in assessing reasonable notice in a particular case. The most important considerations are the Bardal factors; however, other factors may also be considered.
Second, the employer must calculate the employee’s damages based upon the reasonable notice period. Reasonable notice damages are usually calculated on the basis of the employee’s compensation per month, multiplied by the number of months of reasonable notice. There may be deductions from the damages for mitigation income and collateral benefits.
Yes, you can claim Human Rights damages as part of a civil law suit. The Ontario Human Rights Code was amended in 2008 to include s. 46.1 allowing courts to award damages for violations of the Code in wrongful dismissal cases.
Adjudicator Cook in the case of Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation tells us that the employer is obliged to accommodate the worker’s disability to allow the worker to continue in employment unless providing that accommodation would result in undue hardship for the employer. Under the Code, the first question is generally whether the worker is capable of performing the essential duties of the pre-disability job. If not, the second question is whether the worker could perform the essential duties of the pre-disability job with accommodation. A worker who cannot perform the essential duties of the pre-disability job even with accommodation is generally entitled under the Code to access other work that may be available, together with consideration of whether the worker could perform the essential duties associated with that other work with accommodation. This might involve consideration of specific jobs that are available but may also involve creative accommodation solutions, including new job descriptions that allow the worker to continue in employment: British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union,1999 CanLII 652 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R.3 (“Meiorin”).
In a Human Rights setting, employees bear the onus of establishing discrimination on a balance of probabilities. The employee must prove it is more probable than not that one or more Human Rights Code grounds were a factor in the decision to terminate his or her employment. (Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 (CanLII) at para. 83 and Ontario (Disability Support Program) v. Tranchemontagne, 2010 ONCA 593 (CanLII) at para. 109.) If the employee is successful in making out a prima facie case of discrimination, the evidentiary burden shifts to the employer to provide a rational explanation which is not discriminatory. It is not sufficient to rebut an inference of discrimination with just any rational alternative explanation. The employer must offer an explanation which is credible on all the evidence. The ultimate issue is whether an inference of discrimination is more probable from the evidence than the actual explanation offered by JLL. See Shaw v. Phipps, 2010 ONSC 3884 (CanLII) at para. 77, upheld 2012 ONCA 155 (CanLII).
Absolutely. In assessing the credibility of plaintiffs or applicants, Judges or Adjudicators are guided by the principles established in Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.). At pp. 356-357, where the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated:
…Opportunities for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment and memory, ability to describe clearly what he has seen and heard, as well as other factors, combine to produce what is called credibility.
The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of the witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions (…) Again, a witness may testify to what he sincerely believes to be true, but he may be quite honestly mistaken.
The task of Judges and Adjudicators is to consider whether, having regard to the totality of the evidence before me, each of the plaintiffs or applicants has proven the material allegations that form the foundation of their claims that their Code rights have been violated on a balance of probabilities and on the basis of evidence that is clear, cogent and convincing. This necessitates an assessment of each plaintiff or applicant’s credibility as it relates to their material allegations with regard to the totality of the evidence.
Martin v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2003 SCC 54 (CanLII) has told us that there is no authoritative definition of chronic pain. It is, however, generally considered to be pain that persists beyond the normal healing time for the underlying injury or is disproportionate to such injury and whose existence is not supported by objective findings at the site of the injury under current medical techniques. Despite this lack of objective findings, there is no doubt that chronic pain patients are suffering and in distress and that the disability they experience is real.
Evans v. Teamsters, Local 31, 2008 CarswellYukon 22 at paras. 30 and 33 (SCC) wherein the duty to accept a reemployment offer was summarized as follows:
I do not mean to suggest with the above analysis that an employee should always be required to return to work for the dismissing employer and my qualification that this should only occur where there are no barriers to re-employment is significant. This Court has held that the employer bears the onus of demonstrating both that an employee has failed to make reasonable efforts to find work and that work could have been found (Michaels v. Red Deer College (1975), 1975 CanLII 15 (SCC), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 324 (S.C.C.)).
Where the employer offers the employee a chance to mitigate damages by returning to work for him or her, the central issue is whether a reasonable person would accept such an opportunity. In 1989, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a reasonable person should be expected to do so “[w]here the salary offered is the same, where the working conditions are not substantially different or the work demeaning, and where the personal relationships involved are not acrimonious” (Mifsud v. MacMillan Bathurst Inc. (1989), 1989 CanLII 260 (ON CA), 70 O.R. (2d) 701 (Ont. C.A.)). In Cox, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that other relevant factors include the history and nature of the employment, whether or not the employee has commenced litigation, and whether the offer of re-employment was made while the employee was still working for the employer or only after he or she had already left (paras. 12-18). In my view, the foregoing elements all underline the importance of a multi-factored and contextual analysis. The critical element is that an employee “not [be] obliged to mitigate by working in an atmosphere of hostility, embarrassment or humiliation” (Farquhar, at p. 94), and it is that factor which must be at the forefront of the inquiry into what is reasonable.
Thus, although an objective standard must be used to evaluate whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have accepted the employer’s offer (Reibl v. Hughes, 1980 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880 (S.C.C.)), it is extremely important that the non-tangible elements of the situation – including work atmosphere, stigma and loss of dignity, as well as nature and conditions of employment, the tangible elements – be included in the evaluation.
I believe that although both constructively dismissed and wrongfully dismissed employees may be required to mitigate their damages by returning to work for the dismissing employer, they are only required to do so where the conditions discussed in para. 30 above are met and the factors mentioned in Cox are considered. This kind of mitigation requires “a situation of mutual understanding and respect and a situation where neither the employer nor the employee is likely to put the other’s interests in jeopardy” (Farquhar, p. 95). Further, the reasonableness of an employee’s decision not to mitigate will be assessed on an objective standard.
Yes, it can in certain circumstances. For example, in the case of Strudwick v Applied Consumer & Clinical Evaluations Inc, Judge Dow awarded an increased notice period because of the employer’s conduct, with regard to completing the plaintiff’s record of employment and making it more difficult for her to obtain employment insurance benefits resulted in the conclusion that 24 months is was appropriate amount. The law comes from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1997, Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., 1997 CanLII 332 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701, where, at paragraph 130, the Court concluded that where an employer dismisses an employee in a manner that negatively affects the employee’s chances of finding alternative employment, a Court may properly increase the employee’s period of reasonable notice to reflect that increased difficulty.
Yes, and they should. Lump sum damage awards should reflect salary increases that would have been offered to a plaintiff. For example, in the case of Strudwick v Applied Consumer & Clinical Evaluations Inc, Judge Dow accepted 2 percent cost of living increases.
Punitive damages are distinct from aggravated damages. These damages are designed to punish an employer, and as such are an exception to the general rule that damages are to compensate an injured party. Punitive damages go beyond compensatory damages.
Starting at paragraph 67 of Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., [2002], S.C.R. 595, Binnie J. describes punitive damages as an award designed to meet the objectives of punishment, deterrence and denunciation rather than compensation. Binnie J. goes on to provide that punitive damages cannot be limited to specific categories but should be resorted to only in exceptional cases. At paragraph 94 his Honour offers eleven descriptive points on punitive damages:
(1) Punitive damages are very much the exception rather than the rule,
(2) [They are] imposed only if there has been high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible misconduct that departs to a marked degree from ordinary standards of decent behaviour.
(3) Where they are awarded, punitive damages should be assessed in an amount reasonably proportionate to such factors as the harm caused, the degree of the misconduct, the relative vulnerability of the plaintiff and any advantage or profit gained by the defendant,
(4) [In awarding punitive damages, the court must have] … regard to any other fines or penalties suffered by the defendant for the misconduct in question.
(5) Punitive damages are generally given only where the misconduct would otherwise be unpunished or where other penalties are or are likely to be inadequate to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation.
(6) [The purpose of punitive damages] … is not to compensate the plaintiff, but
(7) [Their purpose, rather, is] to give a defendant his or her just desert (retribution), to deter the defendant and others from similar misconduct in the future (deterrence), and to mark the community’s collective condemnation (denunciation) of what has happened.
(8) Punitive damages are awarded only where compensatory damages, which to some extent are punitive, are insufficient to accomplish these objectives and
(9) [Punitive damages] … are given in an amount that is no greater than necessary to rationally accomplish their purpose.
(10) … while normally the state would be the recipient of any fine or penalty for misconduct, the plaintiff will keep punitive damages as a “windfall” in addition to compensatory damages.
(11) Judges and juries in our system have usually found that moderate awards of punitive damages, which inevitably carry a stigma in the broader community, are generally sufficient.
Special Damages are designed to return the plaintiff to the same financial position that he or she was in prior to the alleged injury. Under all human rights statutes, victims of discrimination may receive compensation for special damages such as lost income and expenses incurred as a result of the discrimination.
Where the discrimination results in the termination of employment, the proper measure of compensation for lost income is not the common law measure of “reasonable notice.” This is because the nature of the wrong and the purpose of the remedy to address it is different in cases of discrimination and wrongful dismissal. The difference was explained by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Piazza v. Airport Taxicab (Malton) Assn. (1989), 1989 CanLII 4071 (ON CA), 60 D.L.R. (4th) 759 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 8-10:
In wrongful dismissal cases the wrong suffered by the employee is the breach by the employer of the implied contractual term to give reasonable notice before terminating the contract of employment. Damages are awarded to place the employee in the same position as he or she would have been had reasonable notice been given.
A gross-up must be argued. Your lawyer must put forward a claim for recognition of the increased tax burden this lump sum award will attract within the personal-combined (Ontario/Federal) rates. For example, in the case of Strudwick v Applied Consumer & Clinical Evaluations Inc., Judge Dow awarded a gross-up for taxes of an additional $4,986.21 based on an award of 24 months’ notice.
No, you have the full legal right in Ontario to seek the assistance of an employment lawyer before signing any type of contract, whether you’re starting or ending a job. Furthermore, if you decide to sue your employer for wrongful dismissal, you have two years from the date of your termination to do so.
There is a fee involved with the initial consultation. If we decide to work together, we will work out a payment arrangement that suits your needs.
You should bring in a copy of your identification; a copy of your termination letter or severance package; your original employment agreement or contract, if you still have it; any information regarding your position and duties; your up-to-date CV (if you have one); and information regarding your salary, benefits, allowances, and bonuses. If you have been fired for cause, please bring in all of your warning letters or documentation you have pertaining to the cause.
Matt Lalande has been representing victims with life-changing injuries since 2003. Many injured victims inevitably end up in employment situations because of their inability to get back to work—many get fired or have issues with their long-term disability carrier. As a result, Matt has represented both injured clients and clients in the community, as well as employees, since 2003.
I was a dental hygienist that suffers from really bad scoliosis. My insurance company ignored my doc & cut my benefits off & told me I could do “something”. Matt got me CPP Disability and and LTD settlement – I don’t know what I would have done without him.
My daughter was killed by a drunk driver and it forever changed all of our lives. It seemed that for two years time stopped. This was no an easy journey. Matt let me sit in on the discovery of the driver and boy, he never let up. In the end, our grand-daughter was taken care of and we were compensated for our loss – which we then donated to a cause we believed in.
I call Matt my knight in shining armour. After I was struck by a car while cycling and permanently crippled, he fielded all communications with my especially difficult and downright nasty insurance adjuster. Every step of my care was a battle and I did not have the strength to fight alone.
I lost my leg in a terrible motorcycle accident and Matt help me recover compensation I need because I could not work and the cost of prosthetics and rehab are out of this world. I don’t know what I would have done without him.
My brother ended up paralyzed after a car accident and Lalande did SO MUCH to help get things straight from him getting out of the hospital to all his care for life. We are so grateful for Matt & Heather. I don’t know how my family could have done this without them.
