Beard v. Suite Collections Canada Inc., 2006 CanLII 63560 (ON SC)
Claims of sexual harassment need to be examined in detail. Sexual relations between co-workers do not necessarily permit an Employer to terminate one of the parties for just cause. As with other cases of misconduct, an Employee conduct must be looked at in context.
| Beard v. Suite Collections Canada Inc.pdf |
Drew v. Canadian National Railway, CarswellNat 2256, [2009] L.V.I. 3853-2
Death by a thousand cuts. An Employer who repeatedly treats an employee in an unprofessional, abusive and/or condescending manner can be found to have terminated that Employee thereby entitling them to a severance.
| Drew v. Canadian National Railway.pdf |
Heynen v. Frito Lay Canada Ltd., 1999 CanLII 1386 (ON CA)
Determining what amounts to frustration can, at times, be a frustrating exercise. Courts will examine claims that employment agreements are frustrated very closely.
| Heynen v. Frito Lay Cnada Ltd. and Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd.pdf |
Patterson v. Lee Munro Chevrolet Ltd., 2009 CanLII 23113 (ON SC)
Reading an advertisement for your job in the local paper, while you are off work on a sick leave, represents a breach of your employment terms and entitles you to a severance.
| Patterson v. Lee Munro Chevrolet Ltd.pdf |
Roda v. Bank of Montreal, 2012 CanLII 42061 (ON LA) (Cause)
Summary termination is the capital punishment of employment law. As such, not all misconduct will be found to be cause for summary dismissal. Employer’s have a duty to explore other disciplinary options prior to summarily dismissing an Employee.
| Roda v. Bank of Montreal.pdf |
Roda v. Bank of Montreal, 2012 CanLII 70270 (ON LA) (Remedy Award)
Employees who work in federally regulated industries may, in certain circumstances, be reinstated to their former position. Adjudicators under the Canada Labour Code can set aside dismissals and substitute appropriate disciplinary sanctions in its place.
| Roda v. Bank of Montreal Remedy Award.pdf |
Thornton v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, CarswellNat 4519, 70 C.C.E.L. (3d) 235
Actions speak louder than words. Just because an Employer says that they did not want to terminate you, an adjudicator can still look at how that Employer has actually treated you and find that a termination has occurred.
| Thornton v. Toronto Dominion Bank.pdf |
Wilson v. Bell Mobility Ltd., CarswellNat 7113, [2005] C.L.A.D. No. 269
See no Evil Hear no Evil. Employers cannot turn a blind eye to behavior that despite making them money actually breaches their policies and then turn around and use that same behavior to try to dismiss an Employee for cause.
| Wilson v. Bell Mobility.pdf |
