Posts

Shifting Balance Between Privacy and Openness in the Tribunal World of Justice

Public access to court proceedings is the normal practice in Court proceedings to the justice system (courts and tribunals) as it ensures justice is administered in a fair manner, in accordance with the principle of freedom of expression, found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, until recently, openness and transparency did not extend to Ontario’s Tribunals, which make decisions on a wide range of matters

The tribunal system was initially set up with the idea that people could use it as an alternative to the court system to achieve faster, less expensive and easier resolutions. Tribunals, were part of the justice system but operated outside of the principles of openness and transparency.

This article highlights a recent decision of the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario leading case that initiated significant change to the operation of Tribunals in Ontario. We will highlight some emerging issues facing Tribunals in finding the balance between protecting privacy while being accountable to foundational principles of openness and transparency.

Tensions between privacy and openness

In this age of the Internet, the publication of justice system information can lead to serious privacy consequences. As a result, tensions arise between two competing justice values – an open and accessible justice system and the right to privacy.

Questions arise about how to protect the personal information of individuals involved in court and tribunal processes while continuing to foster openness and accountability. It is a difficult balance to reach.

Rules for privacy differ between courts and tribunals

Seeking justice through the criminal court system can be a gruelling, intimidating and de-humanizing process for individuals. This is evidenced through media coverage of high profile cases where credibility goes on trial, private lives go under the microscope and the victims forced to re-live the trauma every day in the courtroom.

The Province’s various administrative tribunals make decisions on a range of issues from landlord and tenant disputes to human rights complaints. Documents and records have in the past typically not been readily accessible. Up until May 2019 the rules of disclosure in the formal court system as well as the principles of transparency and openness were not considered a part of the tribunal system. Access to administrative tribunal records and proceedings was inconsistent — either at the discretion of the respective tribunal or through access-to-information requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

What changed?

In April 2018, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in Toronto Star v. AG Ontario, finding that the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to administrative tribunals violates the principle of freedom of expression embedded in section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court agreed with the Star that tribunals needed to implement changes to be more open and accessible, transparent and rigorous – necessary to maintain the integrity of the system. Previously, there had been a good deal of secrecy, misinformation, selective disclosure of information, delay, and cost. The result is that the public has had no consistent right and ability to see how decisions are made and on what basis.

The decision in this case significantly transformed how tribunals operate. The outcome had broad ramifications for all judicial tribunals. The court clearly confirmed that tribunals are not simply a function of government, but have adjudicative powers like courts and need to operate openly, like courts.

Bringing Openness into the World of Tribunals

As a response to the decision in the Star case, in May 2019, Tribunals Ontario released a new policy confirming they are now guided by the open court principle and committed to transparency, accountability and accessibility in decision-making and operations.

The open court principle allows the public and media access to tribunal proceedings. It ensures effectiveness of the evidentiary process, encourages fair and transparent decision-making, promotes the integrity of the justice system and informs the public about its operation.

Openness and access to information is fundamental to gaining public confidence in the justice system and in building public understanding of how the administration of justice is maintained.

New challenges for Tribunals

Tribunals now must refine the balance between openness and the privacy concerns of vulnerable people who share sensitive personal information during proceedings. Most decisions and orders of Tribunals Ontario tribunals are available online without charge on CanLII and in some cases on boards’ or tribunals’ websites.

Privacy should never defeat the foundational principles of openness and accountability in tribunal processes, however, where individuals are involved in tribunal processes, their privacy deserves respect and protection.

Maintaining consistency in the balance of privacy and openness

The Canadian Judicial Council plays a leadership role in initiating discussions and debate about the development of electronic access policies. The Council has stipulated that it is important to encourage, to the extent possible, a consistent approach to the use of personal information by courts and administrative tribunals in their decisions and the posting of those decisions on websites.

The CJC’s model protocol on publication of personal information in court decisions, published in 2005, places the onus on judges, not publishers, to limit disclosure of personal information. It provides specific recommendations for protecting the privacy of personal information, characterized as “omitting personal data identifiers which by their very nature are fundamental to an individual’s right to privacy.” It identifies certain information, such as name and date of birth, social insurance number and financial account numbers, as being worthy of protection in written decisions because of the risks associated with disclosing them:

Concluding remarks:

  1. Openness and transparency are fundamental principles of our justice systems – courts and tribunals must respect these principles in their operations.
  2. Withholding public access to records or information for proceedings is unconstitutional and no longer allowed
  3. Privacy and protection of personal information are secondary to the principles of accessibility and transparency
  4. Development of specific electronic policies and promoting wide-spread adoption of them is an important step towards maintaining consistency in the balance of privacy and openness in the justice system.

Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btlegal.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

When Can a Resignation be Retracted?

Do you know someone who tendered their resignation and then had second thoughts? Maybe they did so in anger, or based on illness or circumstances changed. You may wonder: when can a resignation be retracted?

Here you will find the answer to that and we will look at what the courts consider when making a decision. You will find some useful tips, whether you are an employer or an employee, about what you need to know and what to do.

Can an employee retract a resignation?

In brief, an employee may be able to retract a resignation that was made with clear intent, provided that they have an immediate change of heart and quickly let the employer know. However, if an employee clearly and deliberately gives notice and the employer just as clearly accepts it, it may be too late to undo.

Decisions to resign happen for many reasons and in different circumstances. The onus is on both employers and employees to take specific steps to make sure that they get the result they want. Let’s look at some circumstances.

Employees may take back a resignation in these circumstances where the:

  • Resignation has been made with intent, yet the employee has had an immediate change of heart and quickly let the employer know;
  • Employer has not yet accepted the resignation; and
  • Employer has not acted to its own detriment or suffered any expenses by reasonably relying on it

As well, an employee may take back a resignation in circumstances where the resignation was made under emotional stress, in anger or on impulse.

How is “Intent to resign” determined by the court?

Overall, the intent to resign must be deemed voluntary, clear and unequivocal and not made under conditions of emotional stress.

Let’s look in detail based on cases that have been heard by courts, how intent to resign is determined:

Case 1: Is the intent to resign clear and unequivocal?

Recently, in English v. Manulife Financial Corporation, 2019 ONCA 612, Ontario’s highest court, the Court of Appeal, confronted a case of what constitutes a “clear and unequivocal” resignation.

In this case, Elisabeth English, a 66 year old woman was a 10-year employee at Manulife Financial. Manulife Financial was considering an upgrade to its customer service department by bringing in a new computer system. Elisabeth was near retirement age and did not want to go through the training to learn the new system. In September 2016, she provided written notice of resignation, effective Dec. 31, 2016. At the time, English told her supervisor she was not certain she wanted to retire and was assured she could change her mind if she wished.

A few weeks later, she learned that the computer system was not going to be changed so she promptly asked if she could take back her resignation. Her manager did not confirm or deny the request and she kept working. However, in November, her manager informed her that Manulife was already making plans to move on, and she was asked not to return to work on Dec. 12th.

English commenced an action against Manulife for wrongful dismissal. She maintained that she should have been allowed to keep working as she had properly retracted her resignation.

What did the court decide?

  • The motion judge concluded that Elisabeth’s letter constituted a “clear and unequivocal” resignation, and that her resignation was accepted by Manulife. Accordingly, Elisabeth had not been wrongfully dismissed.
  • The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in finding a “clear and unequivoical” resignation, ruling that Elisabeth’s resignation notice was equivocal given the circumstances in which she presented it to Manulife and that she was entitled to withdraw it. Elisabeth had properly advised that she had changed her mind and her supervisor had not indicated that there was a problem with this.
  • Accordingly, since Elisabeth did not in fact resign, the Court held that her termination was wrongful and awarded her 12-months’ salary in lieu of notice.

Courts carefully consider all circumstances surrounding resignations, including the employer’s response when determining “intent” to resign”.

From this case we can see that the Court considered the employee’s request to withdraw her resignation sound as it was made in a timely manner and made before her resignation had been clearly accepted by the employer. In the end, the Court found she did not have a continuing clear intent to resign. The employer had not clearly accepted her resignation and had not acted to its detriment in relying on the resignation.

An employee really can quit and take it back later if the circumstances don’t demonstrate a clear intent and a clear acceptance of the resignation.

Case 2: Is the intent to resign offered under conditions of emotional stress?

In Upcott v. Savaria Concord Lifts Inc., 2009 CanLii 41348 (Ont S.C.) after a dispute with a fellow co-worker, the employee, Barry Upcott, told both his boss and the HR manager he was fed up and said, “I’m done”. He refused to discuss the issue. He turned in his keys, made two trips to collect some belongings, left the workplace, and left a phone message for his boss to ask about picking up the remainder of his belongings from the office. The employer interpreted the employee’s actions as a resignation; quickly deleted all of his emails, disabled his email, called his home to verbally accept his resignation and advised that a follow-up letter accepting the resignation was on its way.

The employee sued the employer, alleging that he had not really resigned because he acted in a fit of anger and should have been allowed to retract his resignation.

What did the court decide?

Despite the employee expressing a clear intention to resign, the resignation was not valid and the employee should have been allowed to come back to work. The Court reasoned that:

  • A reasonable person viewing the situation objectively would not have concluded that the employee’s words and actions amounted to a voluntary resignation and;
  • A reasonable person viewing the situation objectively would have considered that the employee went through a foolish fit of anger and he would likely retract his resignation quickly after leaving the office.

By refusing to allow the employee to come back to work afterwards, the employer engaged in wrongful dismissal. The Court awarded the employee $50,000 in damages. Although a resignation may appear clear and unequivocal and an employer has accepted it, the resignation will not be valid and can still be retracted where the employee made the resignation on impulse in a state of emotional stress.

Bottom-line

So what can we learn from these cases that will help employers and employees to make the right choices and get the results they want?

Tips for Employees

  • Make sure to take ample time to “cool off” if you have had heated arguments or are upset at work. Making important life decisions such as quitting your job should be made in a calm state of mind and emotion not in the heat of the moment.
  • If you are sure of your intent to resign, always communicate it in writing to the employer in clear and unambiguous language.
  • If you intend to resign but are not entirely sure of your decision, avoid speaking with co-workers about it and do not take any actions that are associated with resigning (like clearing your desk of items and taking them home).
  • If you want to retract your resignation, timing is critical. Notify your employer as soon as possible that you wish to retract the resignation. The courts are more likely to conclude that the resignation was not valid if you promptly take steps to rescind it.

Tips for Employers

  • If an employee submits a resignation, and you wish to move ahead with it, it is best to promptly confirm, in writing, that you have accepted that offer.
  • If an employee has resigned in the middle of an emotional outburst, especially one that is entirely out of character, it is advisable to avoid acting upon it and let emotions settle.
  • Under emotionally charged situations, consider offering the employee a chance to “cool off”. Speaking to them under calmer conditions can clarify intent.
  • Consider all conditions around the intent to resign. Always evaluate the employee’s behaviour. Is it consistent with actual voluntary intent to resign or is it unusual behaviour that may be linked to mental health issues, upsetting workplace conditions or other external factors?
  • Once you have established that the employee has resigned and voluntarily intended to do so, advise the employee in writing of the acceptance of the resignation.
  • Request that all resignations be submitted in writing.
  • Make sure you are not forcing a resignation upon an employee – ultimatums or making changes to roles/positions may be perceived as wrongful dismissals.

Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btlegal.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

Employee, Independent Contractor or something in between?

As an employment law lawyer, one of the most common issues I face is confusion from clients over whether they are (or a particular worker is) an “employee,” or “independent contractor.” It is important to understand how workers are classified, and what that means for them in terms of rate of pay, benefits, and legal protections upon termination. Employers must be diligent in properly classifying their workers, as failure to do so can result in serious penalties and tax consequences.

Employees vs Independent Contractors

Strict definitions for the terms “employee,” “independent contractor,” and “dependent contractor” have not been very useful, so courts have relied upon various common law tests for determining the differences between them. Despite these tests, it is not always easy to determine the proper classification of any individual worker.

Employees

A worker may be an employee under the law even if they have agreed in writing to be classified as an independent contractor, submit invoices, or use their own vehicle while completing work tasks.

If having a contract or submitting invoices doesn’t make someone an independent contractor, what does?

In determining whether a worker is an employee, there is not one single overriding factor. Each worker’s situation will be viewed independently, and several different factors will be weighed. With that being said, a worker may be an employee if some of the following factors describe their work situation:

  • The employer provides all the tools and equipment needed to perform work duties;
  • Pay does not fluctuate according to how quickly or how well work is done. For example, the worker is not paid more if a task is finished by Wednesday, instead of Friday;
  • The employer can discipline or suspend;
  • The worker does not determine what job tasks need to be completed;
  • The worker does not set his own rate of pay for his services;
  • The employer determines the location where work is performed; or
  • The employer determines when tasks need to be completed by.

If a worker is an employee under the law, then she is entitled to all the employment rights and protections found in the Employment Standards Act. These rights and protections include:

  • Minimum wage;
  • Overtime pay;
  • Vacation pay;
  • Protected leave; and
  • Notice, or termination pay in-lieu-of notice.

Independent Contractors

Factors that the Court considers in deciding on the issue are similar, but opposite, to those considerations for employees, and include:

  • The worker owns or provides the tools and equipment needed to perform work duties;
  • The worker is in business for him/her self. This means the worker has the ability to make a profit (if the work is done quickly, efficiently, or inexpensively, for example) but also that their is a risk that he looses money (if, for example, the worker under estimated his costs, or circumstances arise that make the work more expensive than anticipated);
  • The worker may be paid more or less money depending on when the job tasks are completed;
  • The worker can subcontract the job tasks;
  • The employer cannot discipline the worker but he could cancel the contract;
  • The worker can work for multiple organizations at the same time; and
  • The worker exercises some control in where or when work is done and who performs that work.

An independent contractor will not have any of the rights outlined above for employees, unless such rights have been negotiated in a valid Independent Contractor Agreement.

What does the case law say?

In Belton et al. v. Liberty Insurance Company of Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal heard a case where the classification of insurance agents as employees or independent contractors was the central issue. Mr. Belton, and similar workers, were commissioned sales agents, selling insurance for Liberty Insurance. Each agent had signed a written employment agreement with Liberty Insurance in which they acknowledged they were independent contractors. Liberty Insurance eventually presented the agents with new contracts, which reduced their commission rates and added minimum production levels. The agents refused to sign the new contracts, and Liberty Insurance terminated their employment. The agents sued their employer for wrongful termination. The trial judge concluded that the agents were employees under the law, not independent contractors.

In reviewing this case on appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that a written agreement stating workers will be classified as independent contractors is not determinative of the proper classification under the law. The Court also outlined the specific factors the trial judge had identified as factors she had weighed in reaching her conclusion:

  1. Whether or not the agent was limited exclusively to the service of the principal;
  2. Whether or not the agent is subject to the control of the principal, not only as to the product sold, but also as to when, where and how it is sold;
  3. Whether or not the agent has an investment or interest in what are characterized as the “tools” relating to his service;
  4. Whether or not the agent has undertaken any risk in the business sense or, alternatively, has any expectation of profit associated with the delivery of his service as distinct from a fixed commission;
  5. Whether or not the activity of the agent is part of the business organization of the principal for which he works. In other words, whose business is it?

The Court of Appeal acknowledged, as the Trial Court had, that there was no direct contact allowed between the agents and their customers regarding policy changes or renewals, all of the agents had Liberty Insurance managers, the agents were not permitted to advertise using Liberty Insurance’s name, and the agents did not have any ownership rights to their customers. Therefore, that the agents were employees of Liberty Insurance, not independent contractors.

Dependent Contractors

The courts have more recently recognized a middle ground between employee and independent contractor by the classification of some workers as “dependent contractors.”

It is important to note that the courts are not creating an entirely new third category of workers with this distinction. Instead, dependent contractors are considered a subset of “contractors,” who merit different treatment upon termination than independent contractors do.

In McKee v. Reid’s Heritage Homes Ltd., the Court of Appeal heard a case which illustrates this distinction. Heritage Homes, owned by Reid, entered into a written independent contractor agreement with Nu Home Consultant Services, which was operated by its owner McKee. McKee was to advertise and sell 69 homes for Reid, for a fee of $2,500 per home sold. Reid was to have sole use of McKee’s services until the relationship ended. The 69 homes were quickly sold, and the contractual relationship continued. The relationship even continued after Reid’s death, at which time his son-in-law, Blevins, succeeded him.

Blevins eventually decided that McKee and her sub-agents should have to work as direct employees. McKee requested the new employment agreement be put in writing, but the parties were never able to reach mutually agreeable terms. The employment relationship subsequently ended, and McKee sued for wrongful termination. After examining the relevant factors, the trial court found McKee to be an employee, and awarded her eighteen months of termination pay in lieu of notice.

In reviewing this case, the Court of Appeal looked at the classifications of employees, independent contractors and dependant contractors:

I conclude that an intermediate category exists, which consists, at least, of those non-employment work relationships that exhibit a certain minimum economic dependency, which may be demonstrated by complete or near-complete exclusivity. Workers in this category are known as “dependent contractors” and they are owed reasonable notice upon termination.

The Court of Appeal went on to explain that the first step “is to determine whether a worker is a contractor or an employee.” If the first step determines the worker to be a contractor, then step two “determines whether the contractor is independent or dependent, for which a worker’s exclusivity is determinative, as it demonstrates economic independence.”

The courts have made it clear that dependent contractors are entitled to reasonable notice, or termination pay in lieu of notice. The length of notice can be specified in an employment agreement. If there is not a valid employment agreement speaking to this issue, then the length of appropriate notice will vary on a case by case basis, determined by the weighing of several factors.

Final Thoughts

It can often be difficult to determine how a worker should be classified. There are great differences in these classifications, and those differences can have a huge impact on both employees and employers.

The fact is that that vase majority of workers classified by their employers as independent contractors are not. If you are a worker, you are probably not an independent contractor. If you are an employer, that person coming into your workplace everyday is probably an employee. Regardless of what your contract may say, a Court may decide that the worker is entitled to all the protections in the Employment Standards Act.

For employees, if you have concerns that you have been improperly classified, speak to a knowledgeable Ontario employment lawyer as soon as possible. The lawyer can go over the specific details of your employment situation and give you advice on which classification is the most appropriate for you. With this information, you will know what rights are due to you while still employed, and also at the end of the employment relationship.

For employers, I also recommend speaking to an employment lawyer if you have concerns about the proper classification of your workers. Failure to properly classify workers can result in serious penalties. You may be stuck with large severance payments because your improper classifications caused you to fail to meet the notice requirements. If workers are properly classified, these are issues that can be specified to in a written employment contract. This limits your overall exposure. A lawyer well-versed in such employment issues can help you make the best decisions for your business.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btlegal.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

Employment Law for Bartenders, Waiters and Waitresses

Bartenders, waiters and waitresses, or “Liquor Servers” as they are referred to in the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”), are given special treatment under the law and by the Ontario Courts. While many of the ESA’s provisions apply equally to all types of employees, there are some important distinctions for liquor servers that hospitality employees and employers should know. This article is meant to highlight some of those important differences.

Minimum Wage

As of January 1, 2018, minimum wage for most workers in Ontario was increased to $14.00 per hour. However, the ESA permits lower minimum wage rates for certain designated groups of workers who receive tips as a significant portion of their income. Liquor servers fall into this category. Since January of 2018, the minimum wage rate for liquor servers is $12.20 per hour.

While the terms “Liquor Server” or “Bartender” are not specifically defined in the ESA, the relevant section on minimum wage provides helpful insight into whether an employee’s minimum wage rate can legally be lowered to $12.20 per hour. The ESA states as follows:

Determination of Minimum Wage
23.1 (1) The minimum wage is the following:
1. On or after January 1, 2018, but before October 1, 2020, the amount set out below for the following classes of employees:
ii. For employees who, as a regular part of their employment, serve liquor directly to customers, guests, members or patrons in premises for which a licence or permit has been issued under the Liquor Licence Act and who regularly receive tips or other gratuities from their work, $12.20 per hour. [emphasis added]

Minimum Wage After October 2020

As suggested in the above section, after October of 2020, the minimum wage rate for liquor servers will increase in accordance with a formula based on the Consumer Price Index. This formula is as follows:

Previous Wage × (Index A/Index B) = Adjusted Wage

In which:

“Previous wage” is the minimum wage rate that applied immediately before October 1st of the year;

“Index A” is the Consumer Price Index for the previous calendar year;

“Index B” is the Consumer Price Index for the calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year mentioned in the description of “Index A;” and

“Adjusted wage” is the resulting new minimum wage rate.

Termination, Reasonable Notice, and Wages

Like all employees in Ontario, liquor servers are entitled to a certain amount of notice, or pay in lieu of notice, when their employment is terminated.

That being said, for liquor servers, more often than not a significant portion of their income comes in the form of tips. Therefore, the biggest question I get as a Toronto employment lawyer, from both employees and employers, is whether tips should be included as wages for the purpose of pay in lieu of reasonable notice. The answer to that questions depends significantly on whether the bartender or liquor server has a valid employment contract that limits notice only to those minimums under the ESA.

Under the ESA, Wages Do Not Include Tips

Under the ESA, generally when an employer terminates an employee who has been continuously employed for at least 3 months, the employer must provide the employee with notice, or pay in lieu of notice. This pay in lieu of notice is often referred to as “termination pay.” The amount of written notice required by the ESA is as follows:

Employment Period Notice Length
3 months – less than 1 year 1 Week
1 year – less than 3 years 2 Weeks
3 years – less than 4 years 3 Weeks
4 years – less than 5 years 4 Weeks
5 years – less than 6 years 5 Weeks
6 years – less than 7 years 6 Weeks
7 years – less than 8 years 7 Weeks
8 years or more 8 Weeks

If an employee, by an enforceable employment contract, is only entitled to the minimums under the ESA, then that worker may NOT be owed tips. Wages under the ESA are defined as:

“Wages” means:
(a) monetary remuneration payable by an employer to an employee under the terms of an employment contract, oral or written, express or implied,
(b) any payment required to be made by an employer to an employee under this Act, and
(c) any allowances for room or board under an employment contract or prescribed allowances,
but does not include,
(d) tips or other gratuities,
(e) any sums paid as gifts or bonuses that are dependent on the discretion of the employer and that are not related to hours, production or efficiency,
(f) expenses and travelling allowances, or
(g) subject to subsections 60 (3) or 62 (2), employer contributions to a benefit plan and payments to which an employee is entitled from a benefit plan. [emphasis added]

Without an Enforceable Termination Clause, Tips Are Owed as Part of Termination Pay

Without an enforceable clause in an employment contract which limits reasonable notice to only the ESA minimums, the Ontario Courts ignore the strict wording of the ESA and require employers to pay tips as part of wrongful termination pay.

We can see an example of this in the case of Giacomo Violo v. Delphi Communications, Incorporated. Violo had worked as a waiter and bartender for a small restaurant in Ontario for 29 years. At the time of his termination, he was 51 years old. The parties did not have an employment contract, and the restaurant contended that Violo had been legally terminated due to excessive tardiness, alcohol abuse, and discourteous behaviour. After examining the evidence, including work records from the defendant and testimony from current employees, the Court determined that “there was no cause for the plaintiff’s dismissal.” The Court then turned to the issue of determining the reasonable notice period Violo was due. After examining numerous factors, including Violo’s age and the availability of similar jobs at the time he was terminated, the Court determined Violo was entitled to a reasonable notice period of 15 months. The Court then addressed the issue of damages, noting that tips would be factored in as such wages constituted a significant portion of his overall income: “… in 2010 he claimed $9,025 in tip income, almost as much as his income from wages.” In total, Violo was awarded $45,250, representative of his base salary and tips over the course of the 15 month notice period.

Final Thoughts

For employers, it is important to have a valid written employment contract with all bartenders, waiters, and waitresses. While the amount of notice cannot be below the minimum amount required by the ESA, employers can fashion contracts which provide for less notice than the employee would otherwise be entitled to at common law. When it comes to employees who receive customary tips, this can mean a substantial difference in the amount of termination pay. If you need assistance drafting employment contracts, we strongly recommend that you speak to an experienced employment attorney for guidance and assistance.

For terminated employees who received tips as a significant portion of their overall income, it is crucial to remember that they likely have rights under the common law that are far greater than the rights afforded to them under the ESA. It may be best for liquor servers and waitresses to sue their former employer in court for “wrongful dismissal,” seeking additional damages which would include tips. If you have been recently terminated from a position where you received tips as part of your income, we suggest that you speak to an employment attorney to help you determine the best course of action for your situation.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btlegal.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

Workplace Harassment, Health and Safety

All workers should have the ability to complete their job duties in a safe work environment. Unfortunately, workplace harassment is a very real problem that many workers have to face. In the past, workplace harassment was largely governed by Section 5(2) of the Human Rights Code, and common law rules of contract. However, in December of 2017, expansive changes were made to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “OHSA“), making it the cornerstone of workplace legislation. The OHSA now sets out the rights and responsibilities of all parties in a workplace, including both employers and employees. Notably, the OHSA is not limited to specific grounds of discrimination, such as age, sex, or national origin. Thus, employers are now required to have a policy which generally addresses harassment in all its forms and from all people.

Workers can face harassment in any workspace, from any individual, in a variety of ways. While the harassing individual might be a fellow employee, supervisor, or owner, the individual does not necessarily have to be someone employed by the employer. The harassing individual may be someone that the worker is required to interact with during the course of completing her job tasks. For example, interacting with a customer or a patient. The harassing individual might not have any professional connection to the workplace, such as a domestic partner of a fellow employee.  The OHSA defines a worker’s workplace as “any land, premises, location or thing at, upon, in or near which a worker works” (section 1). The range of unwanted behaviours can vary from offensive statements all the way to physical violence.

Workplace Harassment

The OHSA defines workplace harassment as “engaging in the course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome” (section 1.5(a). This definition also includes workplace sexual harassment. When we hear the word “harassment,” often scenes of physical violence or unwanted touching come to mind. However, workplace harassment also includes psychological harassment.

Workplace harassment can take many forms, but typically involves unwelcome words and/or actions that are known, or should be known, to be offensive, humiliating, or demeaning. Workplace harassment can also include behavior that intimidates a worker. Common examples include:

  • Making offensive or intimidating remarks and/or jokes;
  • Displaying or circulating offensive or intimidating pictures or written material;
  • Making offensive or intimidating phone calls;
  • Sending offensive or intimidating text messages or e-mails; or
  • Making unwanted sexual advances. See my earlier article on Sexual Harassment in Ontario for more information on that topic.

In most situations, the unwanted conduct occurs more than once. The offensive behaviour might take place over the course of a day, or over weeks or months. For example, a fellow employee who sends several racially offensive e-mails to another employee is most likely engaging in workplace harassment. While less common, it is possible that the offensive conduct only occurs once. For example, one unsolicited sexual advance from a manager towards an employee.

While the OHSA gives employees experiencing workplace harassment greater protections, it does not provide such an individual with the right to refuse to work, as one would have if she had reason to believe she may be endangered by workplace violence. Workplace harassment can easily escalate to threats of, or actual, physical violence. It is vital therefore that employers and employees work together to address and deal with workplace harassment properly before the situation turns into workplace violence.

Workplace Harassment Policy

The OHSA requires that employers prepare a policy on workplace harassment, and review the policy, at minimum, on a yearly basis. This is a requirement for all employers, regardless of size or number of workers. If there are six or more workers regularly employed, this policy must be in writing and be placed in a conspicuous location within the workplace. The workplace harassment policy should contain several pieces of information, including but not limited to:

  • Language on the employer’s commitment to properly handling workplace harassment;
  • A statement concerning the various sources workplace harassment may stem from, such as supervisors, fellow employees, customers, and domestic partners; and
  • Details concerning the responsibilities of each individual in the workplace in addressing workplace harassment.

The workplace harassment policy should encourage workers to report any and all harassment concerns they have. Once the policy is completed, it should be dated and signed by the highest level of management, such as the President or Chief Executive Officer.

Workplace Harassment Program

In addition to the workplace harassment policy, the OHSA requires employers to develop a program to implement the policy. This program must be developed in consultation with the joint health and safety committee or health and safety representative. Once completed, this program must be put in writing. This program must comprise several components, including but not limited to:

  • Procedures for workers to report workplace harassment to the employer or supervisor;
  • Procedures for workers to report workplace harassment to someone other than the employer or supervisor in the event the employer or supervisor is the alleged harasser;
  • Details on how the reported complaints of workplace harassment will be handled and investigated;
  • Details on how disclosure of identifying information will be handled; and
  • Details on how the individual who reported the workplace harassment will be informed of the results of the investigation and of any corrective action.

Once a harassment policy and program have been established, the OHSA requires the employer to provide appropriate instruction to all workers on their contents. Under the OHSA, workers include not only full-time employees, but also part-time, contract, and temporary employees.

Final Thoughts

While implementation of the OHSA’s requirements, including creating a workplace harassment policy and program, have made great strides in curbing workplace issues, it is important to remember that even the best efforts will not be able to solve every situation. Workplace harassment can all too easily turn into violence. The police should be immediately contacted if a threat of violence, or an act of violence, has taken place in the workplace.

The OHSA is also a complex piece of legislation, and failure to follow the appropriate requirements and measures can be costly mistakes for employers. If you are an employer and need help in determining your compliance requirements, we recommend that you consult with a lawyer. If you are an employee who has experienced unwanted workplace conduct, we also recommend that you consult with a lawyer to help protect any rights that may be available to you.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btlegal.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

Time to Update your Workplace ESA Poster

The Ministry of Labour has just released version 8.0 (January 2019) of its mandatory Employment Standards Act poster. The poster is available in multiple languages on the Ministry of Labour website, but you can downloaded it English right here:

All workplaces governed by the Employment Standards Act (the “ESA“) are required to:

  1. Display this poster in a conspicuous place;
  2. provide a copy to each current employee;
  3. provide a copy to all new employees within 30 days of hiring.

Employees can be provided with a physical copy of the the poster or it can be sent to them electronically. Failure to do the above is a breach of the ESA and can have serious consequences for employers.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btzlaw.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

Uber Class Action Given the Green Light to Proceed by Ontario Court of Appeal

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now ruled that the proposed class action law suit against Uber is not barred by the Arbitration Clause in Uber’s contract.

I last wrote about the case of Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc. in March 13, 2018 in my article Arbitration Clause in Employment Contract puts the Breaks on the Uber Class Action in Ontario. At that time, the Honourable Mr. Justice Paul M. Perell found, among other things, that:

  • the plain language of the Employment Standards Act (the “ESA“), does not restrict the parties from arbitrating; and
  • the arbitration clause was not unconscionable.

Interestingly, Justice Perell seemed to believe that the legal result was “absurd public policy”.

It will come as a relief not only to the thousands of Uber Drivers but many employees in Ontario, that the Court of Appeal has reversed this decision.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btzlaw.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

#Clawbies2018 Nominations

The 2018 Canadian Law Blog Awards (The Clawbies)

Well it has been a crazy month for me personally and one exciting year. But, I have put some time aside to make sure I could make my nominations for the 2018 Canadian Law Blog Awards a.k.a. .

For those who don’t know, the Clawbies are in their 13th year and are run by the good people at clawbies.ca. Their goal, to showcase the best Canadian legal resources on the internet, is especially important given that so much legal information available on-line is from the United States. The Clawbies and LawBlogs.ca give Canadians trustworthy sources of Canadian legal information.

I have been thinking about my nominations a lot over the last several months. Especially since I’ve been reading more law blogs than ever since starting Legally Speaking at the beginning of this year.

My Nomination

Without further ado, my nomination for the 2018 Clawbies is:

Advocates for the Rule of Law

The Advocates for the Rule of Law have been publishing since 2014 but this has been a break out year for the organization. They were successful in intervening twice before the Supreme Court of Canada and regularly make erudite publications for Canadian lawyers across the country. Their publications this year have been highly influential and there is no one more deserving of the Change and Advocacy Award than ARL and its principal Asher Honickman.

Honorable Mentions

There are many blogs that deserve honorable mentions and there are many more that I never skip when they arrive in my news feed. However, I’m feeling especially sentimental and wanted to give a special shout out to a few which really inspired my to start my own.

These people regularly publish insightful and well written articles. I hope to be able to meet the quality of their posts one day.

Shameless Plug

To all my readers (which I’m still not convinced is anyone except my wife and mother), if you’ve enjoyed my posts, or, by some unlikely coincidence, have actually learned anything, I would love to be nominated for the best New Blog Clawbie. You can do so by tweeting my blog at .

Regardless, thanks to everyone who supported me in my efforts this year. I’ll never forgot when one of you, you know who you are, came up to me and said you actually enjoyed reading my articles when they popped up on your Facebook news feed. That really gave me the motivation to keep going. Lastly, a special thanks to my colleagues and friends, Leslie Dizgun and Nicholas Goldhawk, who co-wrote / guest-wrote an article each. Happy holidays everyone.

Right to Disconnect

Ontario’s Bill 148 may have created a right to disconnect – even for supervisors and managers

The right to disconnect – to leave your work at work, instead of buzzing in your pocket – is regarded as an aspiration instead of a reality for most Ontario employees. But there may already be a legal basis for the right to disconnect sitting right under our noses, in none other than the Employment Standards Act the (“ESA”).

What is the right to disconnect?

Given the ease of communication that modern technology has afforded, the lines between an employee’s work and private life are blurring more than was ever possible. Constant connection to the workplace has become the norm — even the expectation for many jobs.

The right to disconnect is a statutorily-protected right to ignore work-related calls, e-mails, and other electronic messages off-work hours. France was the first jurisdiction to legally adopt the right to disconnect in 2016.

Do Canadian employees have a right to disconnect?

No right to disconnect has been formally adopted in Canada, although the federal government is considering a right to disconnect for employees in federally-regulated industries, such as banks and telecommunications.

Is there any right to disconnect in Ontario?

Up until (arguably) the recent amendments to the ESA, no right to disconnect existed for Ontario employees. While being required to answer calls or e-mails on a Saturday morning, for instance, could entitle an employee to overtime pay, categorically refusing to do so could (in many cases) constitute misconduct.

Enter Bill 148’s new scheduling requirements

In 2017, Ontario passed Bill 148 – a retrofit of its employment standards to adapt to the changing realities of the modern workplace.  One of the changes to the ESA was the addition of Part VII.2, which deals with scheduling and on-call work.

Among other things, Part VII.2 of the ESA says this: in most cases, if your employer requires you to work on a day for which you’re not scheduled, they must provide you with: (a) at least 3 hours’ pay, regardless of how much time is actually spent working; and (b) at least 96 hours’ notice of the work. Without 96 hours’ notice of the work, the employee may refuse to work in most cases.

What do the scheduling requirements have to do with the right to disconnect?

The scheduling requirements in Part VII.2 of the ESA might mean that employees on a day off, for all intents and purposes, have a right to disconnect. That hinges on whether answering e-mails or phone calls constitutes “work” under the ESA.

While “work” is not defined under the ESA, Courts and Tribunals interpret the ESA in a way that extends maximum protection to employees. A court or tribunal is very likely to consider a requirement to answer phone calls or e-mails as “work”. That means that, for instance, if your boss emails you an urgent question about budget reports on Saturday morning, you are likely entitled to wait until Monday to figure out the answer.

What about supervisors and managers?

The conventional wisdom in Ontario is that, since supervisors and managers are exempt from all of the ESA’s rules regarding hours of work, those jobs are 24/7 gigs and employees must stay on top of work e-mails, even on their days off.

Interestingly, however, supervisors and managers are NOT exempt from the scheduling requirements Part VII.2 of the ESA. That means that, if a supervisor or manager has a right to specific days off, that employee also likely has the same right to disconnect as any other employees on those days.

Can employers get around this with creative scheduling?

Since this is fundamentally a matter of scheduling, one might wonder whether employers can get around this by simply “scheduling” their employees to answer work e-mails.

For non-managerial and non-supervisory employees, there are going to be at least some days where employees have a right to be off the grid; all such employees are guaranteed at least 24 hours free from work each week, and at least 48 hours free from work every 2 weeks. Employees cannot be required to work during those periods.

It is less clear whether employers can use this technique on supervisors and managers; there is nothing in the ESA preventing supervisors and managers from being on-call 24/7. However, Courts and Tribunals generally seek to avoid interpretations that allow employers to skirt the ESA and might easily reject an employer’s argument that the job requires 24/7 attention unless that is clearly borne out by the evidence.

Does that mean I can turn my work phone off when I’m not at work?

Probably not, due to the limits on the right to refuse work in this context. First, the right to refuse work only arises in respect of entire days off – for instance, it does not address after-hours e-mails on a workday. Second, the right to refuse work only arises if you have been given less than 96 hours’ notice. Third, the sections require an employee refusing work to “notify the employer of the refusal as soon as possible”, which in many cases sounds like more trouble than it’s worth.

What can I do about it?

We recognize that most employees do not want to create a conflict by insisting on their strict legal rights. If and when things get contentious, speak to a specialized employment lawyer. Call us today for advice on your workplace issue.

 


Contact Nicholas Goldhawk

Contact Nicholas Goldhawk, the author of this article, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7010 or email him at ngoldhawk@btzlaw.ca.

Nicholas is an Associate of the Management-side Labour Group at BTZ. In this role, he advises management on all aspects of employment and labour law, including representation before administrative tribunals, collective agreement negotiations, arbitrations, wrongful dismissal defence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and human rights.

Before joining BTZ, Nicholas articled and worked as an associate at a boutique labour and employment firm in Toronto where he assisted both employee and employer clients in formulating practical solutions for a wide variety of workplace-related issues.

Nicholas was called to the bar in 2017, after earning a J.D. from Osgoode Hall Law School. Prior to attending Law School, Nicholas obtained his Honours Bachelor of Journalism from Carleton University.

Before attending law school, Nicholas worked as an investigative journalist for a Canadian current affairs TV program.

Nicholas Goldhawk


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

How to Change Employment Contracts

Anytime you ask an existing employee to sign a new employment contract, it’s important to proceed cautiously. There are risks and pitfalls that wary employers may wish to avoid when making a change to their employment contracts. A misgauged approach may result in an unenforceable contract, or worse, result in a costly claim of constructive dismissal.

As set out below, the Ontario Courts have clarified generally two methods to change employment contracts. The first method is for when an employee consents and agrees to the changes, and the second is how to change employment contracts when the employee refuses.

Read more