Many employers assume equity plans play by different rules.
Different from employment contracts.
Different from termination clauses.
Different from Employment Standards Act (“ESA”) analysis.
A recent Ontario decision suggests otherwise, and the implications are significant for employers who rely on equity‑based compensation.
In Liggett v. Veeva Software Systems, Inc. and Veeva Systems Inc.
During 2023, we saw the Ontario Court of Appeal uphold two decisions awarding notice periods beyond what was believed to be the “24-month cap” at 27 and 30 months respectively.
In another recent Ontario decision, the Court awarded 5.5 months of pay in lieu of notice to an employee with only 5 months of service prior to dismissal, which is significantly higher than the “one month per year” rule of thumb. These decisions create uncertainty for employers given the wide range of potential liability arising from wrongful dismissal claims. Fortunately, there are proactive measures employers can take to avoid this liability. Continue Reading Uncertainty on Both Ends of the Common Law Notice Spectrum
Overview
In Hucsko v. A.O. Smith Enterprises Limited, 2021 ONCA 728, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) overturned the lower Court’s decision that found an employee had been wrongfully dismissed in relation to sexual harassment allegations and was awarded 20 months’ notice. In its reversal, the ONCA held that the employee had failed to fulfill remedial steps required by his employer; that he did in fact sexually harass his coworker; and that his for-cause termination was justified.
Background
A senior, 20-year employee made several comments to his younger, female coworker on several occasions, including the following:
Continue Reading ONCA upholds employer for-cause termination for sexual harassment
The Ontario Superior Court has ruled once again on the right of an employee to assert a constructive dismissal in light of the O. Reg. 228/20: Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (“the Regulation”) under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). In the latest decision, the court ruled that the Regulation does not preclude an employee from asserting a common law constructive dismissal.
As discussed in previous posts, under the Regulation neither a reduction in the employees hours of work or wages constitute a constructive dismissal under the ESA if they occur during the COVID-19 Period. The COVID-19 Period keeps changing on us, but it currently runs from March 1, 2020 to September 25, 2021. There have been conflicting decisions about whether the Regulation also removes an employee’s right to assert a constructive dismissal under the common law.
Continue Reading Another Ruling on the IDEL and the Employee’s Right to Pursue Common Law Constructive Dismissal
We blogged about David Heller and his fight against Uber last May when leave to the Supreme Court of Canada was granted. You can catch up on the history and read that post here. If you’re a true nerd you can also watch footage of the arguments made in the Supreme Court here! The Supreme Court’s decision has now been released.
A Brief History
Heller, a driver for UberEats, brought a class action suit against Uber in 2017 alleging that he was an employee under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”). Uber, in response to this suit, said that Heller could not sue in Ontario because of the arbitration clause in his contract with Uber.
The Arbitration Clause
Putting aside the issue of whether Uber drivers are employees – entitled to things like public holiday pay, vacation pay, notice of termination etc. under the ESA – the suit became about the correct forum. Could Heller bring Uber to court in Ontario? Or did the arbitration clause in the contract with Uber apply?
Continue Reading UberEats Driver Fight Stays in Canada