Toronto Employment Lawyer

Cumulative changes amount to constructive dismissal

Daniel A. Lublin, Toronto Metro News
Wednesday, July 18 2006

"Not many men have both good fortune and good sense."
- Titus Livy

John-Louis Drapeau was the consummate company man.  But when his job was gradually eroded, his loyalty quickly turned to fury.  Believing that his demotion was tantamount to a dismissal, Drapeau fled and then proceeded to sue his ex-employer.  His beliefs were vindicated at trial.

While the law of constructive dismissal is fact driven, employees can glean valuable advice from this case:

• courts don't confine the doctrine of constructive dismissal to a single or readily identifiable change to an employee's job.
• when changes are imposed, not every employee can simply pack up and place a call to their lawyer.  The changes must be obvious, negative and substantial - and must be so in the eyes of the judge, not just the litigants.
• An employee who consents to or condones significant changes can cry foul if the aftermath proves less than desirable.  Some form of protest must be registered. 
• employees with valid grievances may even have to remain in the altered job or risk failing to mitigate damages.  In order to unavail employers of this defence, counsel should always be consulted.

Click here for the entire article "Cumulative Demotion leads to Success in Court"

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of wrongful dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com

Blunder Procedure and Pay the Price

Unionized employees have little recourse to the courts

Daniel A. Lublin

Toronto Metro News, Wednesday, July 11, 2007

When Garry and Mark Coleman heard that fellow employee Wayne Demers was planning to file a fraudulent insurance benefits claim, they blew the whistle to their employer.  Demers was immediately fired.  Then, in typical union fashion, hostility brewed among Demers' former union brethren.  When that hostility escalated into fear, the Colemans resigned.  Months later, with their jobs gone and their reputations in tatters, they turned to the courts instead of their union to grieve their alleged wrongs.  Their decision proved fatal to their case. 

As is the typical problem with unionized employees proceeding to sue in court, they should approach jurisdictional issues practically.  Chances are that the court will not entertain their grievance and will instead, order that the matter was better heard in front of an arbitrator - usually after it is too late.

For more, click to to read the entire article - "Blunder Procedure and it could cost you"

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of Wrongful Dismissal.  He can be reached at www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com 

Some Rules are Meant to be Broken

- Managers refusal to comply with directive from boss didn't amount to misconduct.

Daniel A. Lublin, Toronto Metro News
Wednesday, July 4, 2007

About to leave on a much needed vacation, Evo Watson thought she had made plans for just about everything.  But when her boss demanded that she cancel her trip at the last minute, she realized the only contingency she had overlooked - was her own dismissal.

Both employers and employees should glean the following rules:

• where an employee intentionally disregards a clear, lawful and unequivocal order from a superior, her immediate dismissal may be justified;
• employers are entitled to instruct employees to perform given tasks.  These instructions are more likely to become unreasonable where they have little or no connection to the fulfillment of a condition of employment. 
• An employee with a blemished disciplinary past may curry less favour with teh employer - or the judge - when it comes to assessing his or her degree of insubordination. 

For more information, read Vacation Plans Costs Worker her Job

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of discipline and dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or via his Website www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com

Terms of Contract Not Always Binding

As Peer 1 Network Incorporated recently learned, Court's are loath to enforce some agreements. 

In Hayes v. Peer 1 Network Incorporated 2007 CanLII 23352 (ON. S.C), an appeal successfully argued by Daniel A. Lublin, an Ontario Superior Court judge overturned a motion judge's finding that Mr. Hayes was unable to sue his former employer, Peer 1 Network, for wrongful dismissal, in an Ontario Court.

In succeeding on the appeal, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Lublin were able to convince the court that Ontario was the most appropriate forum for Mr. Hayes' wrongful dismissal trial, or at least, that Washington (where employment is at-will) was not the most appropriate forum for the hearing.

For more information, contact Daniel A. Lublin at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or visit www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com.