A recent case from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Watson v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army of Canada, will significantly alter the way settlements and releases ought to be structured involving employees who have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. The employee worked for the Salvation Army as a manager from April 2011 […]
In the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, MD Physician Services Inc. v. Wisniewski, the Court upheld the decision of the lower court on the enforceability of the non-solicitation clause. The case involved two employees who were hired by MD Management Ltd. (“MDM”), a wholly owned subsidiary of MD Physician Services Inc., to […]
In the decision of Haseeb v. Imperial Oil Ltd., the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario determined that an employer discriminated against a prospective employee because it required the ability to work in Canada on a “permanent basis” (citizenship or permanent residency) as a condition of employment. The applicant was an international engineering student at McGill […]
In a recent case from the Divisional Court, McLeod v. 1274458, the Court recently upheld the Superior Court’s decision on the issue of whether an employer is entitled to give working notice (rather than pay in lieu of notice) to an employee who is incapable of working for medical reasons. The case involved an employee […]
In a recent case from the Ontario Court of Appeal, Mohamed v. Information Systems Architects Inc., an independent contractor was awarded damages for the full term of his contract (six months). This was the case even though the consulting agreement contained a termination provision indicating that the contractor could be terminated at any time at […]
Termination Clauses must be read as a Whole to Determine Intention of the Parties In Amberber v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2018 ONCA 571, released June 22, 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“OCA”) has released another decision regarding the interpretation of a termination clause in an employment contract. The decision is good news for employers. […]
Employee Benefits in Ontario – Termination of Benefits of Employees 65 Years and Older In Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board, 2018 HRTO 680, which was released on May 18, 2018, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal considered the impact of benefit plans that terminate at age 65. The employee was a teacher who received […]
PIPEDA Mandatory Notification for Federally Regulated Organizations Particular sections of the Digital Privacy Act that amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) will come into force on November 1st, 2018. Organizations which are subject to PIPEDA will be required to report to the Federal Privacy Commissioner where any breach of a security […]
Bird Richard is pleased to welcome our newest Associate, Travis Ujjainwalla, who joined the Firm in January of this year. Travis was called to the Bar in 2017. Travis provides advice to employers on statutory obligations, wrongful dismissals, and human rights claims. Travis is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the […]
In Aitchison v L&L Painting and Decorating Ltd., the Ontario Human Right’s Tribunal has provided guidance to employers regarding the use of zero tolerance policies concerning drug use in the workplace and medically prescribed marijuana. The employer was a commercial subcontractor involved in the restoration of high-rise buildings. The employee had been employed as a […]
Bird Richard recognizes the importance of privacy and the sensitivity of personal information it collects about its employees and clients. READ MORE >>>
508-130 Albert St,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5G4
T: 613-238-3772
F: 613-238-5955
Before you send an e-mail to Bird Richard, please be aware that your communications with us through this message will not create a lawyer-client relationship with us. Do not send us any information that you or anyone else considers to be confidential or secret unless we have first agreed to be your lawyers in that matter. Any information you send us before we agree to be your lawyers cannot be protected from disclosure.