Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
PTO had no cash value under the contract and the claimant is entitled to statutory vacation pay at 4% of wages for the period January 1–March 10, 2025; the payment in lieu of notice did not include vacation pay because the defendant did not intend it to do so and did not evidence such intention.
Source excerpt
The Court dismissed a judicial review of an Employment Standards Tribunal reconsideration decision, finding no procedural unfairness, bias, or patent unreasonableness.
The termination clause was ambiguous under the required high standard and did not expressly limit common law reasonable notice; applying the Bardal factors the appropriate notice period is eight months; commissions and benefits are payable during the notice period because the only written SIP applied to the 2016 fiscal year and did not unambiguously deprive the employee of common law entitlements; mitigation was not proven to reduce the award; damages were quantified at $53,333.33 before deductions, with prejudgment interest and costs to follow.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division refused permission to appeal because the General Division correctly applied the legal test for voluntary leaving under the EI Act, found the claimant had reasonable alternatives (contact CNESST, seek other employment) and there was no arguable reviewable error; therefore the appeal had no reasonable chance of success.
Source excerpt
Northern Tropic Homes Ltd v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)
Federal Court judicial review of an LMIA compliance penalty was allowed. The Court quashed the decision, holding paragraph 209.3(3)(f) was read too rigidly.
The appellant voluntarily quit and failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he had no reasonable alternative to leaving (he did not seek other employment nor contact CNESST before quitting), therefore he lacked just cause and is disqualified from EI benefits under the Employment Insurance Act.
Source excerpt
The contractual two-week notice clause was not binding because it was potentially below statutory minimums and ambiguous/out-of-date; Labour Standards Board findings that the employer contravened the Labour Standards Code were binding; applying Bardal factors, the appropriate common law notice periods are 3.5 months for Dawn Bourke and 3 months for Dawn Sutherland Dort, with specified deductions for prior Labour Standards awards and mitigation earnings, plus interest and costs, resulting in awards of $8,209.97 and $5,649.45 respectively.
Source excerpt
The court held the email exchange formed the employment contract, but the later termination clause was unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration. Damages were set at six months' notice.
The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant was subjected to harassment by her manager and that the employer ignored a sexual assault complaint, made discriminatory remarks, and treated her differently, which amounted to just cause under s.29(c)(i) of the Employment Insurance Act; because the harassment made the workplace intolerable and the Commission produced no evidence that an extended leave was available or would address the harassment, the appellant had no reasonable alternative to quitting and therefore is not disqualified from EI benefits.
Source excerpt
The General Division erred in law by allocating vacation pay for 2019–2021 under s.36(9); those amounts were due and payable before separation under the Act respecting labour standards and thus were not earnings "by reason of lay-off or separation" for allocation purposes, so only the 2022 vacation pay that became due on separation is allocable under s.36(9).
Source excerpt
Explore more
