Click here to purchase your copy of Human Resources Guide to Workplace Investigations, Second Edition, a must-have practical guide to workplace investigations written by leading employment and workplace investigations lawyers Janice Rubin and Christine Thomlinson.

Serious insight for serious situations.

Serious insight for serious situations.

Insights

Reflections and news direct from Rubin Thomlinson.
Subscribe to receive updates of interest to you.

Filtered By:

Supreme Court: May Be Necessary for Dismissed Employees to Return to the Same Employer to Satisfy Duty to Mitigate

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, it may be necessary for a dismissed employee to mitigate his or her damages by returning to work for the same employer. In a case released just yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada has added a new and interesting element to the mix of termination options for employers. 

Read More

Notice Not Always Proportionate to Service in Case of Short Service Employee

A recent case involving the termination of a short service employee, illustrates a principle that is often difficult for employers to accept.  A terminated employee’s entitlement to reasonable notice may not always be proportionate to his or her notice. The case in point is Gingerich v. Kobe Sportswear Inc. (unreported, January 25, 2008).  Here, Mr.

Read More

Supreme Court of Canada Hears Honda v. Keays

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada heard submissions in what is arguably the most important employment law case in over a decade, Honda v. Keays.  At issue are the legal consequences of firing an employee with a disability – in this case chronic fatigue syndrome.  As part of the company’s disability management program, Honda required

Read More

Restrictive Covenants That “Stick”

This week, we continue to look back at noteworthy 2007 employment law cases.  For people who are interested in the duties imposed on departing employees, have a look at H.L. Staebler Co. v. Allan [2007] O.J. No. 3460, a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  The case revolved around whether an employer’s restrictive

Read More