2015 conférence sur le droit de l`emploi et du travail

Transcription

2015
CONFÉRENCE SUR LE DROIT DE
L’EMPLOI ET DU TRAVAIL
2015
EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR LAW
CONFERENCE
Montréal
Mercredi 6 mai 2015 | Wednesday, May 6, 2015
www.dlapiper.com
DLA Piper (Canada) s.e.n.c.r.l. fait partie de DLA Piper, un bureau d’avocats mondial qui opère par l’entremise de diverses entités légales. Pour plus d’information veuillez vous référer à la section des avertissements
légaux du site www.dlapiper.com.
DLA Piper (Canada) LLP is part of DLA Piper, a global law firm operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information please refer to the Legal Notices section at www.dlapiper.com.
ORDRE DU JOUR
Conférence sur le droit de l’emploi et du travail - Montréal
mercredi, mai 6, 2015
Mot de bienvenue
8 h à 8 h 55
Inscription et petit déjeuner
8 h 55 à 9 h
Mot d’ouverture/Introduction - Pablo Guzman
Présentations: Session I
9 h à 9 h 20
Se séparer n’est pas une mince affaire : Les obligations post-emploi en 2015
- Karen Bock, présenté en anglais
9 h 20 à 9 h 40
Employé ou travailleur indépendant : le dilemme fiscal
- Héloise Renucci et Mark Potechin, présenté en français
9 h 40 à 10 h
Comment protéger votre milieu de travail contre l’intimidation
- Michael Richards, présenté en anglais
10 h à 10 h 20
Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ (harcèlement sexuel en milieu de travail)
- Pablo Guzman et Lucy-Maude Lachance, présenté en français
Mises à jour sur le droit du travail à travers le Canada
10 h 20 à 10 h 40
Mise à jour de l’Ontario : Développements récents au centre de l’univers
- Karen Bock, présenté en anglais
Mise à jour de la Colombie Britannique : Développements récents sur la côte ouest
- Michael Richards, présenté en anglais
Mise à jour de Alberta : Développements récents
- Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch, présenté en anglais
Mise à jour du Québec : Développements récents dans la Belle Province
- Melissa Gaul, présenté en français
Pause-café
10 h 40 à 11 h
Présentations: Session II
11 h à 11 h 20
Pause-café
Ouch ça fait mal! L’octroi des dommages est à la hausse
- Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch, présenté en anglais
11 h 20 à 11 h 40
Quoi de neuf docteur? Amendements au Code canadien du travail
- André Giroux, présenté en français
11 h 40 à 12 h
Naviguer les eaux du nouveau programme de travailleurs étrangers temporaires
- Julio Mena, présenté en anglai
12 h à 12 h 20
Comment gérer vos accommodements raisonnables : un guide pour les employeurs
- Tania Da Silva et Melissa Gaul, présenté en français
Pause et dîner
12 h 20 à 12 h 45
Dîner et Conférencier invité
12 h 45 à 13 h 15
Pause et dîner
Conférencier invité :
Jessica Laforest, Commission des normes du travail du Québec
DLA Piper (Canada) S.E.N.C.R.L.
AGENDA
2015 Employment & Labour Law Conference - Montréal
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Welcome
8:00 am - 8:55 am
Breakfast/Registration
8:55 am - 9:00 am
Welcoming Remarks - Pablo Guzman
Presentations: Session I
9:00 am – 9:20 am
Breaking Up is Hard to Do: The Reality of Post-Employment Obligations in 2015
- Karen Bock, presented in English
9:20 am – 9:40 am
Employee or Independent Contractor: the Tax Dilemma
- Héloise Renucci and Mark Potechin, presented in French
9:40 am – 10:00 am
How to Bullyproof your Workplace
- Michael Richards, presented in English
10:00 am – 10:20 am
Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace)
- Pablo Guzman and Lucy-Maude Lachance, presented in French
Cross Country Check-up: Updates in Employment Law Across Canada
10:20 am – 10:40 am
Ontario Update: Recent Developments From the Centre of the Universe
- Karen Bock, presented in English
British Columbia Update: Recent Developments on the West Coast
- Michael Richards, presented in English
Alberta Update: Recent Developments
- Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch, presented in English
Québec Update: Recent Developments From La Belle Province
- Melissa Gaul, presented in French
Refreshment Break
10:40 am – 11:00 am
Presentations: Session II
11:00 am – 11:20 am
Refreshment Break
Ouch, That Hurts! Increasing Damages Awards
- Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch, presented in English
11:20 am – 11:40 am
What's up doc? Amendments to the Canada Labour Code
- André Giroux, presented in French
10:40 am – 12:00 pm
Navigating the Waters of the New Temporary Foreign Worker Program
- Julio Mena, presented in English
12:00 pm – 12:20 pm
How to be Reasonable in your Accommodations: A Guide for Employers
- Tania Da Silva and Melissa Gaul, presented in French
Break and Lunch
12:20 pm – 12:45 pm
Special Presentation
12:45 pm - 1:15 pm
Break and Lunch
Special Guest Speaker:
Jessica Laforest, Québec Labour Standards Commission
DLA Piper (Canada) LLP
Table des matières
À propos de DLA Piper (Canada) S.E.N.C.R.L. .............................................................................. onglet 1
Profil du cabinet
Se séparer n’est pas une mince affaire : Les obligations post-emploi en 2015 ......................... onglet 2
Karen Bock, présenté en anglais
Employé ou travailleur indépendant : le dilemme fiscal ............................................................... onglet 3
Héloise Renucci et Mark Potechin, présenté en français
Comment protéger votre milieu de travail contre l’intimidation .................................................. onglet 4
Michael Richards, présenté en anglais
Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ (harcèlement sexuel en milieu de travail) .................. onglet 5
Pablo Guzman et Lucy-Maude Lachance, présenté en français
Mise à jour de l’Ontario : Développements récents au centre de l’univers ................................ onglet 6
Karen Bock, présenté en anglais
Mise à jour de la Colombie Britannique : Développements récents sur la côte ouest .............. onglet 7
Michael Richards, présenté en anglais
Mise à jour de Alberta : Développements récents ......................................................................... onglet 8
Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch, présenté en anglais
Mise à jour du Québec : Développements récents dans la Belle Province ................................ onglet 9
Melissa Gaul, présenté en français
Ouch ça fait mal! L’octroi des dommages est à la hausse ........................................................... onglet 10
Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch, présenté en anglais
Quoi de neuf docteur? Amendements au Code canadien du travail ........................................... onglet 11
André Giroux, présenté en français
Naviguer les eaux du nouveau programme de travailleurs étrangers temporaires ................... onglet 12
Julio Mena, présenté en anglai
Comment gérer vos accommodements raisonnables : un guide pour les employeurs ........... onglet 13
Tania Da Silva et Melissa Gaul, présenté en français
Conférencier invité : Jessica Laforest ............................................................................................ onglet 14
La continuité d'une entreprise :
Présentation spéciale par notre conférencière invitée Jessica Laforest de la
Commission des normes du travail du Québec.
Sondage ............................................................................................................................................. onglet 15
Table of Contents
About DLA Piper (Canada) LLP ....................................................................................................... Tab 1
Firm Profile
Breaking Up is Hard to Do : The Reality of Post-Employment Obligations in 2015 ................... Tab 2
Karen Bock, presented in English
Employee or Independent Contractor: the Tax Dilemma .............................................................. Tab 3
Héloise Renucci and Mark Potechin, presented in French
How to Bullyproof your Workplace ................................................................................................. Tab 4
Michael Richards, presented in English
Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) ..................... Tab 5
Pablo Guzman and Lucy-Maude Lachance, presented in French
Ontario Update: Recent Developments From the Centre of the Universe .................................. Tab 6
Karen Bock, presented in English
British Columbia Update: Recent Developments on the West Coast ......................................... Tab 7
Michael Richards, presented in English
Alberta Update: Recent Developments ........................................................................................... Tab 8
Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch, presented in English
Québec Update: Recent Developments From La Belle Province ................................................. Tab 9
Melissa Gaul, presented in French
Ouch, That Hurts! Increasing Damages Awards ........................................................................... Tab 10
Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch, presented in English
What's up doc? Amendments to the Canada Labour Code ......................................................... Tab 11
André Giroux, presented in French
Navigating the Waters of the New Temporary Foreign Worker Program .................................... Tab 12
Julio Mena, presented in English
How to be Reasonable in your Accommodations: A Guide for Employers ................................ Tab 13
Tania Da Silva and Melissa Gaul, presented in French
Special Guest Speaker: Jessica Laforest, Québec Labour Standards Commission ................. Tab 14
Feedback Form .................................................................................................................................. Tab 15
FIRM OVERVIEW
Effective April 17, 2015, Davis LLP combined with DLA Piper LLP (US) and has adopted the name
DLA Piper (Canada) LLP. The firm will operate as an integral part of DLA Piper’s global platform and
brand.
With over 260 Canadian lawyers delivering services in more than 50 practice areas, DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP provides unparalleled value to our clients by combining the deep resources of a global
firm with the highest level of personal service in the business.
Our mission and vision is to be Canada’s premiere entrepreneurial full-service law firm known for its
leading edge specialties and comprised of lawyers who achieve results that exceed expectations
through commitment to our clients and ourselves.
Strength of Expertise
As a full-service, international law firm, DLA Piper (Canada) LLP is strong in all of the traditional areas
of legal practice and also offers clients the knowledge base of our broad array of innovative practice
groups and integrated specialties. Across the firm, our lawyers continuously cultivate commercial and
government relationships to facilitate the conduct of business and identify new business opportunities
for our clients.
With unrivalled Canadian experience representing organizations across all markets, DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP is at the forefront of legal practice including:
 Commercial real estate and leasing, construction, municipal and environmental law.
 Corporate/commercial law, banking and finance, international trade and business transactions,
infrastructure and project finance, insolvency and financial restructuring, taxation, intellectual
property and information technology law.
 Complex litigation, alternative dispute resolution, administrative regulation and government
relations, employment and labour relations, and human rights law.
Our practice groups are coordinated into cross-disciplinary teams of specialists capable of directing
formidable resources to particular areas of law, specific industries, and selected nations or regions as
required.
DLA Piper (Canada) LLP 1
Our Services
Our core services that meet the legal and business needs of our clients include:
 Corporate
 Employment
 Environment
 Finance
 Intellectual Property and Technology
 International Trade, Regulatory and Government Affairs
 Litigation, Arbitration and Investigations
 Projects, Energy and Infrastructure
 Real Estate
 Restructuring
 Tax
 Transportation
Our core sector teams include:
 Banking and Financial Services
 Education
 Energy
 Forestry
 Government Contracting
 Health Law
 Hospitality and Leisure
 Insurance
 Life Sciences
 Media, Sports and Entertainment
 Mining
 Technology
Recognition
Our commitment to sensible and strategic legal counsel has garnered us a solid reputation for
excellence and ethical practice. Our practitioners receive consistent recognition in ranking
publications, including:
 Best Lawyers in Canada 2015 – directory lists 56 of the firm's lawyers across 36 practice areas as
leaders in their field.
 Chambers Global 2015 – Our lawyers continue to rank highly in the leading international directory,
and the firm’s practice area recognition increased by almost 30% over 2014.
 The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2014 recognizes 34 of our partners and counsel as leading
lawyers in various areas of practice.
®
 Martindale Hubbell – peer review rankings have 12 of our lawyers rated as AV Preeminent™
®
(highest level of professional excellence) and 52 as BV Distinguished™ (a widely respected mark
of achievement).
 Benchmark Canada 2015 – named 11 litigation lawyers as Litigation Stars.
Chambers Global sources were quoted as saying, “Their consistent and customer-oriented approach
runs right through the organisation.”
Helping Clients Succeed
Clients can feel confident knowing that our services are of the highest calibre and integrity. We take
pride in our services, our people and our clients. We do what it takes to take care of them and their
needs. Our peers have noticed, and have shared their opinions with you and the global legal arena to
assure you of our solid commitment to you.
DLA piper (Canada) LLP lawyers and professional staff embody an entrepreneurial spirit that yields a
business environment totally focused on client satisfaction. Our approach—alerting clients of
economic and political developments so that they remain informed and compliant, presenting them
with relevant and strategic business opportunities and helping initiate corresponding activities,
leveraging our relationships to introduce clients to potential business partners, independently
developing new commercial structures, and successfully handling conflict resolution—adds
measurable value to our clients’ businesses.
Our Business Plan
DLA Piper (Canada) is a full-service law firm that capitalizes on its existing competencies and
resources. We foster a client-focussed culture where client’s needs drive the way we deliver services
and the capabilities and skills we cultivate. We have positioned ourselves to be able to participate in
high-end transactions without being dependent on the transaction market.
All of our strategic decisions are based on the principal that the client’s interest is first, the firm’s
second and the individual last. One of the foundations of our success is our unwavering commitment
to integration and teamwork within and across all of our offices for the benefit of our clients. A key
strategic focus has been on creating a virtual law firm environment for our lawyers through the
deployment of technologies which have created tremendous efficiencies both from a service delivery
and economic perspective for our clients.
Personal Service, Worldwide Reach
With deep roots in Canadian and international business communities, our extensive connections are
used to help you keep pace with fluctuating global economies and evolving trends. We keep you
informed and compliant of relevant economic, political and legal developments, help identify and
initiate strategic business opportunities and manage conflict resolution. And of course, you always
receive this added value with a level of service that is second to none.
APERÇU DU CABINET
Le 17 avril 2015 Davis s.e.n.c.r.l., a fusionné avec DLA Piper LLP et a pris le nom de DLA Piper
(Canada) s.e.n.c.r.l.
Avec plus de 260 avocats canadiens offrant des services dans plus de 50 domaines de pratique, nous
offrons une valeur inégalée à nos clients en combinant les vastes ressources d’un cabinet d’envergure
mondiale avec le plus haut niveau de service personnalisé du secteur.
Notre mission et notre vision sont clairs : être un cabinet d’avocats de premier ordre au Canada
fournissant des services complets, connu pour ses domaines de spécialité de pointe et composé
d’avocats dont les résultats dépassent les attentes par un engagement au service de nos clients et
envers nous-mêmes.
Expertise
En tant que cabinet d’avocats international offrant des services complets, DLA Piper (Canada)
s.e.n.c.r.l. possède des forces dans tous les domaines traditionnels de pratique juridique et offre aux
clients un vaste éventail de groupes de pratique innovants et de spécialités transversales. À travers le
cabinet, nos avocats entretiennent constamment des relations commerciales et gouvernementales
afin de faciliter la conduite des affaires et identifier de nouvelles opportunités d’affaires pour nos
clients.
Avec une expérience canadienne inégalée quant à la représentation d’organisations à travers tous les
marchés, DLA Piper (Canada) s.e.n.c.r.l. est à l’avant-garde de la pratique juridique, incluant les
domaines du :
 Droit immobilier et des baux commerciaux, droit de la construction, droit municipal et
environnemental.
 Droit des sociétés et droit commercial, droit bancaire et financement, droit du commerce
international et transactions d’affaires, infrastructure et financement de projets, droit de la faillite et
de la restructuration, droit fiscal, droit de la propriété intellectuelle et des technologies de
l’information.
 Litiges complexes, méthodes alternatives de résolution de conflit, réglementation administrative et
relations gouvernementales, droit du travail et des relations de travail, droits de la personne.
Nos groupes de pratique sont constituées d’équipes de spécialistes interdisciplinaires capables de
diriger des ressources formidables dans des domaines de droit particuliers, des industries spécifiques,
et des pays ou régions tels que requis.
DLA Piper (Canada) S.E.N.C.R.L.  1
Nos Services
Nos services principaux permettant de satisfaire les besoins juridiques et d’affaires de nos clients sont
les suivants:
 Droit des sociétés
 Droit du travail
 Droit de l’environnement
 Financement
 Droit de la propriété intellectuelle et des technologies
 Droit du commerce international, règlementation et affaires gouvernementales
 Litige, Arbitrage et Enquêtes
 Projets, Énergie et Infrastructure
 Droit immobilier
 Droit de la faillite et restructuration
 Droit fiscal
 Droit des transports
Nos secteurs principaux incluent:
 Services bancaires et financiers
 Éducation
 Énergies
 Droit forestier
 Contrats publics
 Droit de la santé
 Hôtellerie et Loisirs
 Droit des assurances
 Sciences de la vie
 Médias, Sports et Divertissements
 Droit minier
 Technologies
Reconnaissance
Notre engagement à donner des conseils juridiques raisonnés et stratégique nous a permis d’obtenir
une solide réputation d’excellence et de comportement éthique. Nos membres reçoivent constamment
des reconnaissances dans les différents classements, incluant:
 Best Lawyers in Canada 2015 – liste 56 des avocats du cabinet à travers 36 domaines de
pratiques en tant que leader dans leur secteur.
 Chambers Global 2015 – Nos avocats continuent de se retrouver dans la liste internationale, et la
reconnaissance des domaines de pratiques a augmenté d’environ 30% en 2014.
 The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2014 reconnaît 34 de nos associés et conseillers en tant
qu’avocats de premier plan dans plusieurs domaines de pratique.
 Martindale Hubbell – la revue par les pairs a nommé 12 de nos avocats comme « AV
®
®
Preeminent™ » (le plus haut niveau d’excellence professionnelle) et 52 comme « BV
Distinguished™ » (un marque respectée de reconnaissance)
 Benchmark Canada 2015 – 11 avocats de litige ont été nommé « Litigation Stars ».
Les sources de Chambers Global ont été citées à l’effet que “L’approche orientée sur le client se
retrouve à travers l’organisation.”
Aider les clients à réussir
Les clients peuvent être en confiance en sachant que nos services sont de premier rang et d’une
grande intégrité. Nous sommes fiers de nos services, de nos gens et de nos clients. Nous faisons ce
qui est nécessaire pour bien les traiter, ainsi que leurs besoins. Nos pairs ont noté, et partagé leur
avis avec vous et la scène juridique mondiale afin de vous assurer de notre engagement solide envers
vous.
Les avocats et l’équipe professionnelle de DLA piper (Canada) s.e.n.c.r.l. incarnent un esprit
entrepreneurial qui engendre un environnement de travail orienté vers la satisfaction du client. Notre
approche— alerter les clients des développements économiques et politiques afin de leur permettre
de rester informer et en conformité, leur présenter des opportunités d’affaires pertinentes et
stratégiques et les aider à initier les activités reliées, utiliser nos relations afin de permettre à nos
clients de rencontrer des partenaires d’affaires potentiels, développer indépendamment de nouvelles
structures commerciales, et gérer avec succès la résolution de différends—ajoute une valeur tangible
aux affaires de nos clients.
Notre plan d’affaires
DLA Piper (Canada) s.e.n.c.r.l. est un cabinet offrant une gamme complète de services et capitalise
sur des compétences et des ressources existantes. Nous encourageons une culture concentrée sur le
client au sein de laquelle les besoins du client orientent notre façon de fournir des services, ainsi que
nos capacités et compétences. Nous nous sommes positionnés afin de pouvoir participer à des
transactions hautement sophistiquées sans être dépendants du marché des transactions.
Toutes nos décisions stratégiques ont pour principe de placer en premier les intérêts de nos clients,
puis les intérêts du cabinet et enfin ceux des individus. Un des fondements de notre réussite est notre
engagement inébranlable à l’intégration et au travail d’équipe au sein et à travers tous nos bureaux de
manière à avantager nos clients. Notre stratégie a été de créer un environnement de travail virtuel
pour nos avocats par le biais du déploiement de technologies, permettant de créer un rendement
inégalé d’un point de vue de la prestation de services et des perspectives économiques pour nos
clients.
Service personnalisé, portée mondiale
Étant bien implanté dans les communauté d’affaires canadiennes et internationales, nos vastes
connexions sont mises à profit afin de vous aider à suivre le rythme des économies mondiales
fluctuantes et des tendances en évolution. Nous vous maintenons informés et aidons à vous
conformer aux développements économiques, politiques et juridiques pertinents, vous aidons à
identifier et initier des opportunités d’affaires stratégiques, et gérons la résolution des différends. Et,
bien entendu, vous recevez toujours cette valeur ajoutée avec un niveau de service inégalé.
Karen R. Bock
Partner
[email protected]
Suite 6000, 1 First Canadian Place PO Box 367, 100 King St W, Toronto, ON, M5X 1E2, Canada
T: +1 416 365 3523 F: +1 416 777 7444
Karen Bock is a partner in the Employment Group at the firm's
Toronto office. Karen has a general management-side labour and
CREDENTIALS
employment law practice.
Education
LL.B., University of Toronto, 2000
Karen advises public and private-sector employers on matters, such
as employment standards, arbitrations, wrongful dismissal actions,
human rights complaints, workplace safety and insurance matters.
Karen received her LL.B. from the University of Toronto in 2000.
Ph.D., English Literature, Brown
University
M.A., English Literature, Brown
University
Previously, she earned her B.A. (Hons.) from the University of
Winnipeg. She also earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in English Literature
B.A., English Literature, (with Honours),
University of Winnipeg
from Brown University, and taught for some years at Wesleyan
University in Connecticut.
Admissions
PUBLICATIONS
 Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission:
Supreme Court Expands Reach of Constructive Dismissal, 31
Languages
Ontario
English
Mar 2015
 2014 Employment and Labour Law Conference Presentations - Edmonton, 08 Oct 2014
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
 Member, Law Society of Upper Canada
 Member, Canadian Bar Association
RECOGNITIONS
 Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History Prize
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
 Board Member, Street Haven at the Crossroads
DLA Piper (Canada) S.E.N.C.R.L. | 1
SE SÉPARER N’EST PAS UNE MINCE AFFAIRE:
LES OBLIGATIONS POST-EMPLOI
EN 2015
Présenté par Karen Bock
Conférence en droit de l’emploi et du travail de Montréal
Mercredi 6 mai 2015
OBLIGATIONS POST-EMPLOI :
Où en sommes-nous en 2015?
Quelles sont-elles?
Pourquoi les voudriez-vous?
Que devez-vous faire pour les obtenir?
Comment les faire appliquer?
Comment pouvez-vous les contourner?
QUE SONT LES OBLIGATIONS POSTEMPLOI?
Généralement, ce sont des obligations contractuelles
auxquelles un individu est tenu envers son ancien employeur
alias “clauses restrictives” puisque ce sont des restrictions
imposées à un ancien employé pendant une certaine période
de temps après la fin de l’emploi
Obligations post-emploi les plus courantes:
confidentialité
non-concurrence
non-sollicitation
POURQUOI LES VOUDRIEZ-VOUS?
Afin de protéger votre savoir-faire, vos informations
confidentielles, les relations avec vos clients, les avantages
compétitifs, etc.
Sondage de 2013: Dans 47 % des cas les anciens employés
violent l’entente de confidentialité et de non-divulgation en
emportant des informations de l’entreprise avant de la quitter!
Pour prévenir ou empêcher d’avantager un concurrent après
que vous ayez investi des ressources importantes pour attirer,
embaucher et retenir vos employés
Pour éviter que vos employés tirent profit des relations qu’ils
ont tissées (à vos frais) avec vos clients, consommateurs,
contractants et employés en les sollicitant pour le compte de
vos concurrents
QUE DEVEZ-VOUS FAIRE POUR LES
OBTENIR?
Premièrement, comprenez que : Pour des motifs d’ordre
public, les tribunaux canadiens n’aime PAS faire appliquer les
obligations post-emploi (à l’exception des obligations de
confidentialité)
Shafron c. KRG Insurance Brokers (2009): la règle générale dicte
que les clauses restrictives sont contraires à l’ordre public et donc
nulles (Cour Suprême du Canada)
Afin de persuader un tribunal de faire appliquer une clause
restrictive, vous devez être capable de démontrer que la
clause est raisonnable à tous égards.
QU’EST-CE QUI EST “RAISONNABLE”?
La clause restrictive ne doit pas outrepasser ce qui est
nécessaire pour protéger les intérêts d’affaires légitimes de
l’employeur.
Elle doit être raisonnable quant à:
sa durée
son périmètre géographique; et
tous ses autres aspects, incluant l’étendu des activités restreintes.
Aller trop loin est fatal; il vaut mieux avoir une clause
applicable couvrant une zone géographique moindre et en
effet effective pour une période de temps plus courte que de
ne pas avoir de protection du tout.
QU’EST-CE QUI EST “RAISONNABLE”?
La clause ne peut pas restreindre excessivement la capacité
de l’employé à utiliser ses compétence pour gagner sa vie.
La clause ne peut en aucun cas être ambigüe.
“Le grand Vancouver”… ne fonctionnera pas.
Prohiber de travailler dans toutes les activités dans lesquelles
l’ancien employeur a un intérêt… ne fonctionnera pas.
L’ancien employé doit savoir EXACTEMENT ce qu’il ne peut pas
faire.
Les tribunaux ne seront d’aucune aide: aucune “réparation”
judiciaire d’une clause restrictive n’est permise!
NON-CONCURRENCE vs. NONSOLLICITATION
Une clause de non-concurrence n’est presque JAMAIS
applicable.
Le meilleur pari est sur une clause de non-sollicitation!
EMPLOYÉ vs. ACTIONNAIRES/PROPRIÉTAIRE
Une clause restrictive contractée par un employé est plus
susceptible de ne pas respecter les conditions de
“raisonnabilité”.
Une clause restrictive contractée dans le cadre de la vente
d’une entreprise est plus susceptible d’être opposable à
l’ancien propriétaire ou actionnaire:
Payette c. Guay Inc.
LE TIMING (ET LA CONTREPARTIE)
EST LA CLÉ
Quand devez/devriez-vous solliciter une clause restrictive
auprès d’un employé?
Au moment de l’embauche?
Lorsqu’une promotion importante est offerte?
Au congédiement?
Pour être exécutoire, l’employé doit recevoir une “contrepartie”
en échange d’avoir accepté une clause restrictive,…
…et ce n’est pas n’importe quelle contrepartie qui suffira!
Et l’employé doit avoir eu l’opportunité pour se faire conseiller.
EST-CE QUE LINKEDIN ENGENDRERA LA
MORT DES CLAUSES RESTRICTIVES?
Est-ce qu’employé qui met à jour les informations de son
employeur sur LinkedIn est en effet en train de solliciter les
clients / consommateurs / employés de son ancien
employeur?
Peut-être…
Pouvez-vous restreindre ce qu’un ancien employé poste sur
sa page LinkedIn?
Peut-être…
UNE FOISQUE VOUS LES AVEZ OBTENUS,
COMMENT LES FAIRE APPLIQUER?
Restez en alerte!
Si vous n’agissez pas rapidement alors que vous êtes au courant
d’une violation, une clause autrement exécutoire deviendra nonexécutoire.
Envoyez une mise en demeure à votre ancien employé (et à
son nouvel employeur)
Demander une injonction pour éviter que l’ancien employé ne
continue de violer la clause
Documentez tout :
les pertes dont vous avez soufferts à cause de la violation, tant
celles qui sont pécuniairement quantifiables que celles qui ne le
sont pas
coûts de l’exécution
CONGÉDIEMENT INJUSTIFIÉ ET
APPLICABILITÉ
Si l’employé est “injustement congédié”, le congédiement peut
rendre invalide une clause restrictive autrement applicable.
Au Québec, un employé qui est congédié sans “motif sérieux”
n’est pas lié par la clause restrictive
Parallèlement, un employé qui se conforme à une clause
restrictive (même si elle était pas légalement applicable) peut
se voir attribuer un préavis plus long en cas de recours pour
congédiement injustifié
Point à retenir?: Si vous voulez faire appliquer vos clauses
restrictives, les tribunaux canadiens attendent que vous payiez
pour ce privilège.
COMMENT POUVEZ-VOUS LES
CONTOURNER?: LE REVERS DE LA
MÉDAILLE
Que faites-vous si vous voulez embaucher un employé qui est
assujetti à une clause restrictive?
Premièrement: faites preuve de diligence raisonnable!
Conditionnez votre offre d’emploi à une confirmation par
l’employé qu’il n’est pas soumis à une clause restrictive.
Si le candidat est lié par une clause restrictive, révisez-la et
déterminez si elle peut être applicable ou non (consultez votre
avocat!)
COMMENT POUVEZ-VOUS LES
CONTOURNER?: LE REVERS DE LA
MÉDAILLE
Développez une stratégie dans un cas où l’ancien employé
chercherait à faire appliquer la clause:
L’employé doit/devrait-il demander la permission de l’ancien
employeur pour accepter votre emploi?
Continuerez-vous d’employer l’employé?
Risque de réclamation contre vous en tant que nouvel
employeur :
incitation à une violation du contrat
ingérence dans les relations contractuelles
DES ALTERNATIVES AUX CLAUSES
RESTRICTIVES TRADITIONNELLES
Si l’employé a une obligation fiduciaire, considérez si une
clause restrictive est nécessaire
Congé avant la fin de l’emploi ou entente de consultation vs.
un congédiement
Droit de reprise ou déchéance de compensation différé
Levinsky c. Toronto Dominion Bank
Clauses de prime de départ
Woodward c. Stelco (Ontario)
Nortel Networks c. Jervis (Ontario)
Obligation de remboursement
Rhebergen c. Crestron Veterinary Clinic (C.-B.)
CONSEILS POUR LES EMPLOYEURS
Utilisez des clauses restrictives avec parcimonie et seulement
pour protéger des intérêts d’affaires identifiables et légitimes
Adapter les clauses restrictives aux individus et à leurs
activités véritables
Rédigez avec soin! (Obtenez un avis juridique…)
N’allez pas trop loin
Revoyez les clauses restrictives avant de promouvoir, de
changer l’employer de poste ou d’augmenter sa
compensation, et mettez la clause à jour de manière
appropriée la clause
Considérez les interactions entre la clause restrictive et les
dispositions de résiliation
Envisagez des alternatives aux clauses restrictives
BREAKING UP IS HARD TO DO:
POST-EMPLOYMENT
OBLIGATIONS
Presented by Karen Bock
Montréal Employment and Labour Law Conference
POST-EMPLOYMENT OBLIGATIONS:
Where are we in 2015?
What are they?
Why would you want them?
What do you have to do to get them?
How do you enforce them?
How do you get around them?
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
2
WHAT ARE POST-EMPLOYMENT
OBLIGATIONS?
Typically, these are contractual obligations which an individual
owes to a former employer
aka “restrictive covenants” because they restrict what the
former employee can do for a period of time after the
employment has ended
Most common post-employment obligations:
confidentiality
non-competition
non-solicitation
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
3
WHY WOULD YOU WANT THEM?
To protect your know-how, confidential information, client
relationships, competitive advantages, etc.
2013 survey: Former employees breach confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements 47% of the time, taking company
information before they leave!
To prevent or hinder a competitor from benefiting after you
have invested significant resources in attracting, hiring, and
retaining your employees
To prevent your employees from leveraging the relationships
they have built (on your dime) with your clients, customers,
contractors and employees by soliciting them on behalf of your
competitors
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
4
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET THEM?
First, understand: As a matter of public policy, Canadian
courts do NOT like to enforce post-employment obligations
(except for confidentiality obligations)
Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (2009): the general rule is that
restrictive covenants are contrary to public policy and therefore
void (Supreme Court of Canada)
In order to persuade a court to enforce a restrictive covenant,
you have to be able to establish that the covenant is
reasonable in all respects.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
5
SO WHAT’S “REASONABLE”?
The restrictive covenant must go no further than is necessary
to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests.
It must be reasonable in:
duration
geographic scope; and
all other aspects, including scope of activity that is restricted.
Over-reaching is fatal; better to have an enforceable covenant
that covers less territory and is in effect for a shorter period of
time than to have no protection at all.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
6
SO WHAT’S “REASONABLE”?
The covenant cannot unduly restrain the employee from using
his/her skills to earn a living.
The covenant cannot be ambiguous in any regard.
“Greater Vancouver”… won’t work.
Prohibition on engaging in any of the activities the former employer
has interests in… won’t work.
The former employee has to know EXACTLY what s/he can’t do.
The courts won’t help: no judicial “fixing” of a covenant is
allowed!
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
7
NON-COMPETE vs. NON-SOLICIT
A non-compete covenant is almost NEVER enforceable.
The smart money is on a non-solicit!
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
8
EMPLOYEE vs.
SHAREHOLDER/OWNER
A restrictive covenant entered into by an employee is less
likely to meet the “reasonable” requirements.
A restrictive covenant entered into as part of a sale of a
business is more likely to be enforceable against the former
owner or shareholder:
Payette v. Guay Inc.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
9
TIMING (AND CONSIDERATION) MAY
BE EVERYTHING
When can/should you seek a restrictive covenant from an
employee?
At the time of hiring?
When a significant promotion is offered?
At termination?
To be enforceable, the employee must receive “consideration”
in exchange for agreeing to the restrictive covenant,…
…and not just any consideration will do!
And the employee must be given time to seek advice
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
10
WILL LINKEDIN BE THE DEATH OF
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS?
Is an employee who updates her employer information on
LinkedIn effectively soliciting clients / customers / employees
of her former employer?
maybe…
Can you restrict what a former employee posts on his LinkedIn
page?
maybe…
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
11
ONCE YOU HAVE THEM, HOW DO YOU
ENFORCE THEM?
Stay Alert!
If you don’t act quickly once you are aware of a breach, an
otherwise enforceable covenant will become unenforceable.
Send a demand letter to the former employee (and to his/her
new employer
Seek an injunction to prevent the former employee from
continuing to breach the covenant
Document everything:
losses you suffer because of the breach, both those that can be
quantified in money and especially those that can’t
costs of enforcement
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
12
WRONGFUL DISMISSAL AND
ENFORCEABILITY
If the employee is “wrongfully dismissed” the dismissal may
invalidate an otherwise enforceable restrictive covenant
in Québec, an employee who is terminated without “serious
reason” is not bound by his/her restrictive covenant
Alternatively, an employee who complies with a restrictive
covenant (even if it was legally unenforceable) may be
awarded a longer notice period in a wrongful dismissal action
Take-home point?: If you want to enforce your restrictive
covenants, Canadian courts expect you to pay for the
privilege.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
13
HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THEM?:
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN
What do you do if you want to hire an employee who is subject
to a restrictive covenant?
First: do your diligence! Make your offer of employment
conditional on the employee confirming s/he isn’t subject to a
restrictive covenant.
If candidate is bound by a restrictive covenant, review it and
determine whether it is likely to be enforceable or not (consult
your lawyer!)
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
14
HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THEM?:
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN
Develop a strategy in case the former employer seeks to
enforce the covenant:
can/should the employee seek permission from the former
employer to take your job?
will you continue to employ the employee?
Risk of claim against you as the new employer:
inducing breach of contract
interference with contractual relations
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
15
ALTERNATIVES TO TRADITIONAL
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
If the employee is a fiduciary employee, consider whether a
restrictive covenant is necessary
Garden leave or consulting arrangement vs. termination
Clawback or forfeiture of deferred compensation
Levinsky v. Toronto Dominion Bank
Golden handcuff provisions
Woodward v. Stelco (Ontario)
Nortel Networks v. Jervis (Ontario)
Repayment obligation
Rhebergen v. Crestron Veterinary Clinic (BC)
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
16
TIPS FOR EMPLOYERS
Use restrictive covenants sparingly and only to protect
identifiable and legitimate business interests
Tailor the restrictive covenant to the individual and her actual
activities
Draft carefully! (Get legal advice…)
Don’t overreach
Review restrictive covenants before each promotion, change
of job or increase in compensation, and update the covenant
as appropriate
Consider interaction between restrictive covenant and
termination provision
Consider alternatives to restrictive covenants
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
17
BREAKING UP IS HARD TO DO:
POST-EMPLOYMENT OBLIGATIONS IN 2015
By Karen R. Bock
In a perfect world, employees would never resign or have to be terminated. They would have long and
satisfying careers in which they remained productive and loyal to employers whose businesses would
always be successful.
In the imperfect world we all inhabit, however, employees do resign or are terminated, with or without
cause. In this imperfect world, employers quite reasonably worry about what employees will do after
employment ends with the knowledge they have gained working in the employer’s business. Employers
seek to protect their businesses by restricting what a former employee can do with the knowledge she
has gained during the course of her employment about the employer’s business, clients, customers and
employees.
Generally, employers try to use “restrictive covenants” to protect their interests.
These restrictive
covenants can be part of an initial employment agreement or a separate agreement signed by the
employee before starting employment, during employment, or at the end of the employment relationship.
However, if restrictive covenants are not carefully drafted and tailored to the employer’s specific business
and the employee’s specific role in that business, they are not be worth the paper on which they are
written.
Restrictive covenants come in three basic varieties:

confidentiality agreements

non-solicitation agreements

non-competition agreements
A restrictive covenant prohibits an employee from doing something that would otherwise be lawful for the
employee to do.
A confidentiality agreement (also known as a “non-disclosure agreement”) restricts an employee or
former employee from using his former employer’s confidential information in the employee’s subsequent
employment.
A non-solicitation agreement restricts an employee from soliciting her former employer’s clients,
customers, distributors, suppliers and/or employees.
CAN: 18803811.1
A non-competition agreement restricts an employee from competing with his former employer’s
business.
Courts are reluctant to enforce broadly-worded restrictive covenants that effectively prevent an employee
from working in the field or business in which the employee is trained and experienced. In order to
enforce a restrictive covenant, the court will analyze the covenant to determine whether it is reasonably
necessary in the circumstances to protect an employer’s legitimate business interests. And just as with
termination provisions, the court will look to see that the employee has received consideration for
agreeing to the restrictive covenants that will limit her abilities to engage in certain activities after her
employment ends. Therefore, ideally, restrictive covenant agreements should be signed by the employee
at the time the employee is hired, before the employee actually commences work. The employer may
also seek to include restrictive covenants as conditions to a promotion or significant increase in
compensation. Alternatively, an employer can seek to obtain the employee’s agreement to restrictive
covenants at the time of termination, as part of termination package.
1.
Confidentiality Clause
Confidential information is information in which your business has a proprietary interest that the business
is entitled to protect. Generally, if the information is in the public domain or if it is information of which
your competitors are aware, it is not confidential and you are not entitled to protect it.
However, information that is not readily available to the public or your competitors, such as customer
records, marketing plans, business strategies, financial data, and trade secrets (for instance, recipes,
formulas, programs, designs, etc.), can constitute confidential information.
You are not entitled to protect an employee’s “know-how”, the skills, abilities and experience an employee
gains in the course of her employment.
You can protect your business’ confidential information by including carefully drafted non-disclosure
provisions in employment agreements, or by supplementing employment agreements with separate nondisclosure agreements.
When drafting non-disclosure provisions or confidentiality agreements, you should ensure that
“Confidential information” is clearly and explicitly defined to include the kinds of information and trade
secrets crucial to your business.
1) Non-Solicitation Clause
CAN: 18803811.1
A non-solicitation clause restricts an employee from communicating with the clients, customers,
distributors, suppliers and/or employees of her former employer in order to entice them to take their
business to her new employer.
In most cases, a carefully crafted non-solicitation clause provides sufficient protection for a former
employer while still permitting the employee to remain in his chosen line of work and use his knowledge,
skills and experience. Because non-solicitation clauses are narrower in scope than non-competition
clauses, they are more likely to survive legal challenges.
2) Non-Competition Clause
A non-competition clause restricts an employee from acting in any way that could constitute competition
with her former employer’s business interests. In essence, the employee is prevented from working in the
same line of business as her former employer for the duration of the non-competition period.
Canadian courts are extremely reluctant to enforce non-competition clauses, since they can have the
effect of forcing the employee to remain in the original employer’s employ in order to earn a living in her
chosen field. Non-competition clauses have little chance of being upheld except in the context of a sale
of a business or in rare circumstances where the nature of the former employer’s business indicates that
if the employee is permitted to compete, the former employer’s business will be seriously jeopardized.
Enforceability: The Basic Test
In Canada, our courts have made it clear that there is an important public interest in discouraging such
“restraints on trade”, and in maintaining free and open competition. However, our courts have also
recognized that there is an important public interest in permitting parties to make agreements and to hold
the parties to the terms of those agreements.
These two distinct public interests meet and clash in restrictive covenants in the employment context. A
non-solicitation clause, for instance, restrains an employee from soliciting trade from a client of his former
employer. At the same time, the employee knowingly agreed to and accepted the terms of that restraint.
In the face of these conflicting or competing public interests, our courts have developed a three part
enquiry to determine if a restrictive covenant is reasonable, and thus should be enforced.
1
Step 1: Does the employer have a proprietary interest entitled to protection?
1
Elsley v. J.G. Collins Insurance Agencies, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 916 (S.C.C.)
CAN: 18803811.1

Does the employer have a legitimate interest in confidential and proprietary information?
The employer is not entitled to restrain an employee’s right to use generic skills or
information gained through the employment relationship.

Does the employer have a legitimate interest in its clients, customers, suppliers,
distributors and/or employees, particularly where the departing employee’s relationships
with those clients, customers, suppliers, distributors and/or employees is of such a “close
and personal” nature that it is legitimate to expect that any solicitation by the departing
employee would be successful?

Does the departing employee, armed with the specialized skills and knowledge gained
through his employment with the employer, pose such a risk to the employer’s business
that a non-competition agreement is reasonable in the circumstances?
Step 2:
Are the temporal or geographic features of the clause reasonable, or too broad?

Is the temporal dimension of the restrictive covenant reasonable to protect the employer’s
legitimate business interests?

Is the geographic dimension of the restrictive covenant reasonable to protect the
employer’s legitimate business interests?
Step 3:
Is the covenant against competition generally, and not limited to prescribing solicitation
of former clients of the former employer?
In general, a Canadian court will not enforce a non-competition clause if a non-solicitation clause would
adequately protect an employer’s interests.
2
In Canada, it’s important to get the covenant “right”; unlike the courts in some jurisdictions in the United
States, Canadian courts won’t “fix” or “blue-pencil” a covenant that the court thinks is too broad or
ambiguous, even if the result is that an employer’s legitimate interests will be significantly damaged.
Alternatives to Traditional Restrictive Covenants
Given the difficulty of enforcing traditional non-competition and non-solicitation provisions, it is not
surprising that employers have developed other strategies for incenting employees to restrict their
activities post-employment.
Garden Leave
2
Lyons v. Multari, (2000), 7 C.C.E.L. (3D) 15 (Ont. C.A.)
CAN: 18803811.1
One way to retain control over an employee’s activities after termination of employment is not to
terminate. During the garden leave, the employee remains employed by the employer and continues to
receive salary payments and benefits coverage but does not attend at work or provide any services to the
employer. A condition of the garden leave is that the employee cannot accept employment with another
employer or otherwise engage in activities that would breach his/her obligations of loyalty and good faith
to the employer.
Garden leave can apply to a resignation or a termination by the employer. In either case, the employee
must agree to the terms of the garden leave. Garden leave can result from a provision in an employee’s
employment agreement that requires the employee to provide a period of notice before the employee’s
resignation becomes effective. To be effective and enforceable as garden leave, the agreement should
provide the employer with the discretion to require the employee not to provide active services and be cut
off from access to information and the company’s systems during the resignation notice period.
While garden leave can be a very effective way to restrict an employee from competing with or soliciting
the clients or employees of the current employer, it can also be costly, since the employee continues to
receive full salary and benefits during the garden leave/resignation notice period.
Although there is not much case law on the enforceability of garden leave provisions, the Ontario
Superior Court has recently enforced a six-month garden leave provision without going into the public
policy considerations that are usually considered when an employer tries to enforce a traditional
restrictive covenant.
3
Consulting Relationship
In appropriate circumstances, an employer may offer a departing employee a consulting arrangement that
takes effect when the employee’s employment ends as a way to transition the employee out of the
business while keeping the employee from accepting work with a competitor.
The consulting
arrangement should contain provisions that prevent the consultant from competing with the employer or
offering services to competitors of the employer. If the consulting agreement is properly drafted, the
employer may have no obligation to require the former employee to provide actual services to the
employer. However, the former employee is unlikely to agree to the consulting agreement unless there is
a guarantee of payment to the consultant whether or not services are provided.
As with any consulting agreement, the employer will want to ensure that the consultant is actually an
independent contractor, and not simply an employee who is being called a “consultant”.
3
Blackberry Limited v. Marineau-Mes, 2014 ONSC 1790
CAN: 18803811.1
Clawback or Forfeiture of Deferred Compensation
A long term incentive plan can include provisions which result in the clawback or forfeiture of awards
under the plan if the employee works for a competitor during a specified period following the termination
of employment.
4
Golden Handcuffs

Woodward v. Stelco (Ontario)
5
Woodward was employed by Stelco beginning in 1959.
In 1986, he was offered and signed a
“Retirement Benefits Contract” which stipulated if and when Woodward retired, Stelco would pay him a
special retirement benefit in consideration for his agreement not to compete with Stelco or work with a
competitor. When Woodward breached his covenant not to compete, Stelco ceased payment of the
special retirement benefit. Woodward sued.
The Ontario Court found that the Retirement Benefits Contract was not a “restrictive covenant”. It did not
prevent Woodward from engaging in conduct that was competitive with Stelco. Rather, the Contract
stated that if Woodward competed without Stelco’s consent he would forfeit the otherwise lifetime monthly
retirement benefit.

Nortel Networks v. Jervis (Ontario)
6
In this case, Nortel included a post-employment non-competition provision in a stock option plan. Jervis
agreed that if he competed with Nortel within one year of executing options, he would have to repay
Nortel any profit he made on the exercise of those options. As in the Stelco case, the Court found that
this was not a “restrictive covenant” that prohibited Jervis from competing; it simply exacted a price from
Jervis if he chose to compete. The Court held that where a former employee is required to forego a
benefit if he or she chooses to compete, that is not a restraint of trade.

Rhebergen v. Crestron Veterinary Clinic (BC)
7
Rhebergen was a recently credentialed veterinarian who entered into an employment agreement with an
establish vet who had a practice among dairy farms in an area where there were very few vets. The
employment agreement contained an unusual non-competition clause: if Rhebergen set up a veterinary
4
Levinsky v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2013 ONSC 5657
Woodward v. Stelco Inc. 1998 CanLII 17686 (ON CA).
6
Nortel Networks Corp. v. Jervis [2001] OJ No. 12 (ON SC)
7
Rhebergen v. Creston Veterinary Clinic Ltd., 2014 BCCA 97 (BC CA).
5
CAN: 18803811.1
practice within 25 miles of the Creston Veterinary Clinic she would have to pay Creston a certain amount
depending on when she set up that practice.
After 14 months of working for Creston, Rhebergen told Creston that she intended to quit and set up her
own vet business in the same town. Under the terms of her employment contract, she had agreed not to
terminate the employment agreement for 3 years, so Creston terminated her employment for cause.
Ultimately, the BC Court of Appeal took a different approach from the Ontario courts in the Stelco and
Nortel cases. The BC Court of Appeal held that the non-competition clause in Rhebergen’s employment
agreement was a restraint of trade. However the Court also held that the clause was enforceable against
Rhebergen: it was neither ambiguous nor unreasonable in the circumstances.
Restrictive Covenants: Other Recent Cases of Interest and Lessons for Employers
1.
Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants in Ontario: H.L. Staebler Company v. Allan
8
Mr. Allan and Mr. Kienapple worked for H.L. Staebler Company in Ontario as commercial insurance
salesmen. Their employment agreements contained restrictive covenants which stated that for two years
after the termination of employment, they would not “conduct business” with any of Staebler’s clients or
customers who Allan and Kienapple handled or services at the date of termination.
Allan and Kienapple resigned and almost immediately began to work for a competitor of Staebler,
Stevenson & Hunt Insurance Brokers. On behalf of Stevenson & Hunt, they solicited clients they had
serviced at Staebler. Staebler sued to enforce the restrictive covenants, and brought a motion for an
injunction to prevent Allan and Kienapple from soliciting Staebler’s clients on behalf of their new
employer. By the time Staebler managed to get the injunction, 118 clients of Staeblers had transferred
their business to Stevenson & Hunt.
At trial, the employer was successful…
The trial judge held that the restrictive covenant in issue was reasonable in scope and duration, and was
no more restrictive than was reasonably necessary to protect Staebler’s business interests. The trial
judge found that the restrictive covenant was a “hybrid” clause, a combination of a non-solicitation and
non-competition clause. While it did prevent Allan and Kienapple from “conducting business” and not just
soliciting, it did not prevent Allan and Kienapple from contacting Staebler clients whom they had not
handled or serviced at Staebler.
8
H. L. Staebler Company Ltd. v. Allan (2008) 92 O.R. (3rd) 107. No. 399 (Ont. C.A.)
CAN: 18803811.1
The trial judge ordered that Allan, Kienapple and Stevenson & Hunt pay Staebler damages in the amount
of almost $2 million.
But at the Court of Appeal, the employer lost…
The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the notion of a “hybrid” restrictive covenant, and found that the
restrictive covenant Allan and Kienapple signed was a non-competition clause. It had no geographical
limit and contained no limit on the type of “business” which Allan and Kienapple were prohibited from
conducting. The absence of a geographical limit combined with the blanket prohibition on conducting
business rendered the restrictive covenant overly broad and unenforceable.
In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal took into account the nature of the positions Allan and
Kienapple held with Staebler.
They were two of ten commercial insurance salespeople working for
Staebler, and did not play an exceptional role in the business. They were not managers, directors or key
employees, and were not fiduciaries in relation to Staebler.
relationships with their clients, this was common in the industry.
Although they had close personal
The Court of Appeal also took note of
the fact that other Staebler salespeople were subject to much less broad restrictive covenants.
In sum,
the Court of Appeal concluded that a suitably restricted non-solicitation clause would have been
reasonable in all the circumstances.
Although Staebler appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, the
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without a hearing.
The Lesson for Employers

Don’t overreach: don’t use a non-competition clause when a non-solicitation clause is
enough.

Recognize that a non-solicitation clause is almost always enough in the eyes of a court.

Make sure to include both a time-limit for the restrictive covenant, and a geographic
scope. Where a geographic scope is difficult to specify (for instance, because business
is conducted electronically and/or remotely), the restrictive covenant should state this
explicitly.

Include specific and express language directed at the employer’s and the individual
employee’s circumstances.
Include express justifications of any
“exceptional
circumstances” and an acknowledgement by the employee in relation to those
circumstances that a breach of the restrictive covenant will cause severe harm to the
employer, requiring a specified from of remedy within a delineated period of time.
CAN: 18803811.1
3) Don’t Look to the Court to Fix Your Mistakes: Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western)
9
Inc.
Morley Shafron sold his insurance agency to KRG Insurance Brokers Inc., and joined KRG as a broker in
Vancouver. In 1988, Shafron entered into an employment agreement with KRG which included a noncompetition clause. The non-competition clause prohibited Shafron from being involved in the business
of insurance brokerage in the “Metropolitan City of Vancouver” for a period of 3 years after the termination
of his employment with KRG for any reason except termination by KRG without cause. Over the next 14
years, Shafron’s employment agreement was renewed on numerous occasions, but the non-competition
clause remained essentially unchanged.
In 2001, Shafron left to KRG to work for another insurance company at an office in Richmond, B.C.
A
significant number of Shafron’s clients followed him from KRG to his new employer.
KRG sued Shafron to enforce the non-competition agreement.
KRG also argued that Shafron had
breached his fiduciary duty to KRG and his duty of confidentiality to KRG.
At trial, Shafron was successful…
The trial judge found that Shafron was not a director, senior manager or a “key employee” of KRG and
therefore owed no fiduciary duties or obligations to KRG. The trial judge also found that there was no
evidence that Shafron had breached any duty related to confidential information.
When it came to the non-competition clause, the trial judge found that it was unenforceable because,
among other things, the area defined within the restrictive covenant was neither clear not certain. As a
result of this ambiguity, the non-competition clause was unreasonable. In coming to this conclusion, the
judge started from the proposition that there was no legal or judicial definition of the phrase “Metropolitan
City of Vancouver”. The trial judge also found that the area covered by this phrase, whatever it meant,
was wider than necessary to protect KRG’s legitimate interests. Finally, the judge held that, at 3 years,
the temporal length of the restrictive covenant far exceeded what was reasonably necessary to protect
KRG’s reasonable interests.
KRG found help from the B.C. Court of Appeal, but…
The B.C. Court of Appeal did not disagree with the trial judge that the phrase “Metropolitan City of
Vancouver” was unclear and ambiguous. However, the Court of Appeal was prepared to try to “fix” that
ambiguity by applying the doctrine of “notional severance”. In essence, the Court of Appeal “read down”
the ambiguous phrase at issue to make it unambiguous and thus enforceable. The Court of Appeal
9
Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc. [2009] S.C.J. No. 6 (S.C.C.)
CAN: 18803811.1
decided that the phrase “Metropolitan City of Vancouver” must have been intended to mean the City of
Vancouver and something more. The Court of Appeal considered whether the phrase should mean “the
Greater Vancouver Regional District”, but decided that this definition would give the non-competition
clause an unreasonable reach. A reasonable interpretation was to construe the phrase to include the City
of Vancouver and the municipalities directly contiguous to it, including Richmond, the University of British
Columbia endowment lands and Burnaby.
The B.C. Court of Appeal then referred the case back to the B.C. Supreme Court for an assessment of
damages owing to KRG based on the 3-year restrictive covenant to which Shafron had agreed.
And finally the Supreme Court of Canada had its say…
The Supreme Court upheld Shafron’s appeal of the B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision.
The Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that in order for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable, it
had to be unambiguous.
The Supreme Court also made it very clear that parties could not look to the courts to “fix” ambiguous
terms in their restrictive covenants. The doctrine of “notional severance”, the Supreme Court indicated,
has no place in the interpretation of restrictive covenants in employment contracts.
There was no
evidence that KRG and Shafron would have agreed unquestioningly to the geographic scope at which the
B.C. Court of Appeal had arrived in “reading down” the phrase “Metropolitan City of Vancouver”.
According to the Supreme Court, applying the doctrine of notional severance to terms of a restrictive
covenant in an employment agreement simply amounts to a court rewriting the covenant in a manner the
court finds reasonable. It is the responsibility of employers, not the courts, to draft reasonable restrictive
covenants. Employers should not be encouraged to draft overly broad restrictive covenants, secure in
the knowledge that the court will sever the unreasonable parts or read down the covenant to what the
court considers reasonable. The Supreme Court stated:
“The restrictive covenant is sought by the employer. The obligation is on the employee.
Having regard to the generally accepted imbalance of power between employers and
employees, to introduce the doctrine of notional severance to read down an
unreasonable restrictive covenant to what is reasonable provides no inducement to an
employer to ensure the reasonableness of the covenant and inappropriately increases
the risk that the employee will be forced to abide by an unreasonable covenant.” (para
41.)
CAN: 18803811.1
In the case of Shafron’s non-competition clause, the Supreme Court also refused to apply the principle of
“blue-pencil severance”, or removing part of a contractual provision, to delete the word “Metropolitan”
from the phrase “Metropolitan City of Vancouver”. The Court stated that there was “no evidence that the
parties would have ‘unquestionably’ agreed to remove the work “Metropolitan” without varying any other
terms of the contract or otherwise changing the bargain” they had made (para. 50).
The Supreme Court upheld Shafron’s appeal, and the restrictive covenant which had been part of
Shafron’s employment agreement with KRG for 13 years was of no force or effect. Shafron is free to
compete with KRG.
The Lesson for Employers:

Make sure that all the terms of your restrictive covenants are clear and unambiguous:
o
use legally recognized terms, like municipalities, regions, counties or provinces,
to define geographic scope; and
o
be duly diligent and check that the terms of existing restrictive covenants remain
current and clear (if the legal terms for a geographic area change, consider
updating the restrictive covenant accordingly the next time you offer the
employee fresh “consideration” in the form of a salary raise or other
compensation).

Include an express “severability” provision in your restrictive covenants, which allows a
court to “sever” distinct provisions which are found to be unenforceable.

10
And once again, don’t overreach: the court will not “fix” a restrictive covenant that the
court finds applies for too long a period of time to be reasonable, or a geographic area
that is larger than necessary to protect an employer’s interests. It’s better to have an
enforceable non-solicitation clause that lasts for at least 6 months, than reach for a 12month clause that in the end provides no protection at all.
4) Can You Get By Without Restrictive Covenants?: RBC Dominion Securities Inc. v. Merrill
11
Lynch Canada Inc.
10
A “severability” provision states that certain identified clauses in an agreement are each separate and distinct
covenants, severable one from the other, and that if any such covenant or covenants is determined to be invalid or
unenforceable, such invalidity and unenforceability attaches only to the invalid or unenforceable covenant or
covenants, while all the other covenants that form part of the agreement continue in full force and effect.
11
RBC Dominion Securities Inc. v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. [2008] S.C.J. No. 56 (S.C.C.)
CAN: 18803811.1
RBC Dominion Securities Inc. and Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. are competitors in the investment brokerage
business, and both had offices in the city of Cranbrook, B.C. In November of 2000, virtually all of the
investment advisers at RBC in Cranbrook, including the branch manager, Don Delamont, left to go work
for Merrill Lynch, leaving only two very junior investment advisors and two administrative staff at RBC’s
office.
The departing employees gave RBC no notice of their resignation. In addition, during the weeks before
they left, the departing employees surreptitiously copied RBC’s client records and transferred them to
Merrill Lynch. As a result of the departure of the employees, RBC’s Cranbook office all but collapsed,
and was able to retain only 15% of its previous clients.
The departing employees were not subject to any restrictive covenants.
RBC sued Merrill Lynch and the former RBC employees, claiming compensatory, punitive and exemplary
damages on the following grounds:

against the former employees:
o
breach of fiduciary duty,
o
breach of an implied contractual term of employment not to compete unfairly
upon leaving RBC’s employ;
o
breach of an implied contractual term of employment to give reasonable notice of
resignation; and
o

misuse of confidential information.
against Merrill Lynch and its Cranbrook manager:
o
breach of duty in tort for inducing RBC’s employees to terminate their contracts
of employment without notice and to breach their contractual obligations not to
compete unfairly;

against all the defendants: actions in tort for conspiracy and conversion (the latter relating
to the removal of documents known to be the property of RBC).
At Trial, RBC was successful…
The trial judge held that the former RBC employees were not fiduciaries of RBC, and thus did not owe a
duty of loyalty as fiduciaries to RBC. However, the trial judge also held that the employment contracts of
CAN: 18803811.1
the former RBC employees did have implied terms which required reasonable notice of resignation and
which prohibited unfair competition with RBC after the termination of employment.
In relation to
Delamont, RBC’s former branch manager, the trial judge found that Delamont had breached his
contractual duty by coordinating the departure of the employees who left and by failing to inform RBC
management of the impending departure of the employees.
The trial judge determined that the appropriate period of notice the former employees should have given
RBC was 2.5 weeks, and ordered the former employees to pay RBC an aggregate amount of $40,000.
The trial judge also held that all of the defendants had competed unfairly with RBC and were thus liable
for RBC’s loss of profits, including future loss of profits that occurred after the 2.5 week notice period
ended. The defendants were ordered to pay compensatory damages of $225,000 with respect to this
unfair competition.
In addition, the trial judge ordered the defendants to pay RBC $330,000 in punitive damages for the
conversion of RBC’s client records.
The largest award of damages was made against Delamont personally. He was ordered to pay almost
$1.5 million, based on five years of lost business and the collapsed operations of the Cranbrook branch.
The trial judge found that the branch manager had an implied contractual duty of good faith towards his
employer which included retaining his employer’s employees.
At the B.C. Court of Appeal, the damages owing to RBC were reduced…
The B.C. Court of Appeal quashed the damages for unfair competition and the $1.5 million award against
the former RBC branch manager.
The Court of Appeal explained that in the absence of a contractual non-competition clause, fiduciary duty
or misuse of confidential information, an employee has no duty not to compete with a former employer.
RBC’s employees had the right to consider other offers of employment while still employed with RBC, and
were allowed to prepare for their departure by contacting clients and even preparing client lists which they
take with them to their new employers.
However, the Court of Appeal agreed that the former employees did breach an implied term in their
employment contracts when they took RBC’s client records and gave them to Merrill Lynch. The Court of
Appeal also noted that Delamont was not a fiduciary, and was thus not distinguishable from the other
former RBC employees in terms of the duties owed to his employer. As a result, the Court of Appeal
overturned the $1.5 million dollar award against the former branch manager.
CAN: 18803811.1
The Court of Appeal also agreed that the former employees breached their obligation to provide
reasonable notice of their resignation, and awarded RBC damages for lost profits during that 2.5 week
period. RBC was also awarded punitive damages for the conversion of RBC’s client records. In the end,
the damage award against the defendants was reduced from $2 million to a about $370,000.
At the Supreme Court of Canada, Delamont did not fare as well,…
The majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the B.C. Court of Appeal that the former RBC employees
were not subject to an implied term of employment that they would not engage in “unfair competition”. In
the absence of a non-competition agreement or a non-solictitation agreement, the former employees
were free to compete with RBC and solicit RBC’s clients.
The $1.5 million award against Don Delamont, the former branch manager, however, was reinstated by
the Supreme Court. By organizing the mass defection of the other employees from the Cranbrook branch
he managed, Delamont breached an implied duty of good faith to his employer. By his own admission,
Delamont’s duties as branch manager included recruiting and retaining investment advisors.
In
organizing the departure of the RBC investment advisors, Delamont had breached that duty.
With respect to the other former employees, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that
RBC was only entitled to damages for lost profits for the 2.5 week notice of resignation period.
The Lesson for Employers:

In the absence of an enforceable restrictive covenant prohibiting competition and/or
solicitation, a non-fiduciary employee is free to compete with her former employer or to
solicit clients of her former employer.

Employees have an obligation to give notice of resignation, although in most cases such
notice will be brief, and employers can claim damages against employees who fail to
provide notice.
Therefore, consider including a term in the employment agreement
specifying the required notice for resignation.

Employees owe an implied duty of confidentiality to their employers. However, this duty
does not extend to the identity of clients, or to client lists created by the employee,
particularly in businesses like investment advising where continuity of contact is part of
the service clients expect and require. If you want to protect such information, require the
employee to sign a confidentiality agreement that expressly defines
“confidential
information”.
CAN: 18803811.1

Orchestrating a group of employees to leave their employer may breach an implied term
of an employee’s employment agreement, even if the employee is not a fiduciary, if the
consequences are devastating to the employer.
Conclusion
As these cases demonstrate, the common law provides some protection to an employer with respect to
the activities of a former employee, at least when that former employee breaches his duty of good faith in
particularly egregious ways. However, all levels of court in RBC Dominion Securities clearly confirmed
that a non-fiduciary employee is not restricted from competing with her former employer or from soliciting
her former employer’s clients.
In short, the best way to protect your business from former employees is to require the employee to agree
to clear, unambiguous and reasonable restrictive covenants. When crafting such restrictive covenants, it
is crucial to remember that one size does not fit all. In order to meet the “reasonable” test, restrictive
covenants must be tailored to fit the employer’s business and the employee’s role in that business. As
the Shafron case demonstrates, you only get one chance to get it right, and getting it wrong means losing
all the protection the restrictive covenant was intended to provide.
CAN: 18803811.1
Mark A. Potechin
Partner
[email protected]
Suite 1400, McGill College Tower 1501 McGill College Avenue, Montréal, QC, H3A 3M8, Canada
T: +1 514 392 8414 F: +1 514 392 4637
Mark Potechin is a partner in the firm's Montréal office where he
practises tax law with a focus on income tax planning for
corporations and individuals as well as representing them before the
tax authorities. Part of his practice is also focused on wills, estates
and trusts, especially resolution of estate disputes.
Mark’s first job was in the tax department of an international
accounting firm. Mark now has over 30 years’ experience working in
income tax, meeting the corporate tax requirements of ownermanaged enterprises and the personal tax planning needs of the
owners and their families. He also has experience on matters
related to GST, HST and QST.
CREDENTIALS
Education
LL.B. (Honours), McGill University,
1979
B.C.L. (Honours), McGill University,
1978
Languages
English
French
Mark has taught income tax courses both at McGill and Concordia
Universities, has been a group coordinator on numerous occasions for the Canadian Institute of Chartered
Accountants In-Depth Tax Course and has lectured and written extensively on numerous tax topics.
Mark was instrumental in establishing McGill University’s former Graduate Diploma in Taxation program
and was its first Academic Coordinator. Mark previously lectured at McGill in the Federal and Provincial Tax
course dealing with GST and QST.
Mark has been awarded a 2015 Client Choice award for the Corporate Tax Category in Quebec in
recognition of his outstanding client service.
 Member, Executive, Canadian Bar Association''s Wills, Estates and Trusts Section (Quebec Division)
 Past President, Canadian Bar Association’s Income Tax Section (Quebec Division)
 Member, Board of Directors, Caisse Desjardins de Notre-Dame-de-Grace
 Former Secretary and Member, Executive Committee, Caisse Desjardins de Notre-Dame-de-Grace
 Former Member, Executive, The Financial and Estate Planning Council of Montreal
 Member, Canadian Tax Foundation
 Member, Society of Tax and Estate Practitioners
 Member, Association de Planification Fiscale et Financière
RECOGNITIONS
 Client Choice Award, Corporate Tax (Quebec), 2015
 Past President, Jewish Eldercare Centre (320 bed long term care facility)
Héloïse Renucci
Avocat
[email protected]
T: +1 514 392 8409 F: +1 514 392 4638
Héloïse Renucci est avocate au bureau de Montréal de DLA Piper
S.E.N.C.R.L., membre du groupe de fiscalité, et du groupe de droit
des testaments, fiducies et successions. Sa pratique couvre tous les
aspects liés à la planification fiscale et successorale, et la
représentation des clients devant les autorités fiscales.
J.D. (Common Law), Université de
Montréal, 2011
LL.M. Fisc., Hautes Études
Commerciales (HEC) Montréal, 2011
LL.B., Université de Montréal, 2008
Héloïse représente des entreprises privées dans divers secteurs
d’activité, mais également d’autres entités et des particuliers. Elle a
Québec
acquis une expérience pointue en matière de règlement de
successions internationales.
Héloïse a obtenu un baccalauréat en droit (LL.B.) à l’Université de
Montréal en 2008, et est devenue membre du Barreau du Québec en 2009 après avoir effectué son stage
au contentieux de Revenu Québec.
Après son admission au Barreau, Héloïse a effectué une maîtrise en droit option fiscalité à l’École des
Hautes Études Commerciales (HEC) de Montréal, puis un Juris Doctor à l’Université de Montréal.
Pendant ses études, Héloïse a reçu la bourse KPMG dans le cadre de sa maîtrise en droit option fiscalité,
et le prix Leroux Côté Burrogano récompensant l’excellence en droit des biens et des contrats.
Avant de se joindre à DLA Piper, Héloïse a exercé dans un cabinet juridique de Montréal.
Membre de la Fondation Canadienne de Fiscalité
Membre de l’Association de planification fiscale et financière
Membre de l’Association du Jeune Barreau de Montréal
Bourse KPMG (maîtrise en droit, option fiscalité), HEC Montréal, 2010
Prix Leroux Côté Burrogano (excellence en droit des biens et des contrats), Université de Montréal,
2008
EMPLOYÉ OU TRAVAILLEUR INDÉPENDANT:
LE DILEMME FISCAL
Présenté par Mark A. Potechin et Héloïse Renucci
Mercredi 6 mai 2015
CCQ - DÉFINITIONS
Article 2085
« Le contrat de travail est celui par lequel une personne, le
salarié, s'oblige, pour un temps limité et moyennant
rémunération, à effectuer un travail sous la direction ou le
contrôle d'une autre personne, l'employeur. »
Article 2098
« Le contrat d'entreprise ou de service est celui par lequel une
personne, selon le cas l'entrepreneur ou le prestataire de
services, s'engage envers une autre personne, le client, à
réaliser un ouvrage matériel ou intellectuel ou à fournir un
service moyennant un prix que le client s'oblige à lui payer. »
2
LIEN DE SUBORDINATION
Article 2099 CCQ
« L'entrepreneur ou le prestataire de services a le libre choix des
moyens d'exécution du contrat et il n'existe entre lui et le client
aucun lien de subordination quant à son exécution. »
Approche différente en droit civil et en Common Law mais
critères similaires.
En droit civil, l’élément central est le lien de subordination.
This is a sample footer
3
CRITÈRES DE DISTINCTION
Contrôle
Propriété des outils
Chances de profit / risques de perte
Intégration
L’intention des parties, critère pertinent?
4
CRITÈRES INTERPRÉTÉS SELON
L’INDUSTRIE
Question de faits: les tribunaux semblent prendre en compte
les particularités de l’industrie
Exemple des informaticiens indépendants
TAP consultant inc. c. Québec (Sous-Ministre du Revenu),
2011 QCCQ 6626
5
AFFAIRE TAP CONSULTANT
Informaticienne indépendante incorporée qui rend
services à des firmes de consultants en informatique
des
Cotisation basée sur la notion d’entreprise de services
personnels
Analyse des critères traditionnels
Par la suite, consultations avec des représentants de
l’industrie
6
AFFAIRE TAP CONSULTANT - SUITE
Décision
Distinction entre le contrôle du travailleur et le contrôle du
résultat
Question de l’intention des parties
Grande connaissance d’un logiciel spécifique - autonomie
Clause de non-concurrence / propriété intellectuelle
Critère économique
7
RECOMMANDATIONS
Mise en place d’une procédure de détermination
Contrat écrit détaillé
Pas de contrats de trop longue durée / privilégier des contrats
courts séparés pour chaque travail même si les conditions
restent les mêmes et renégociation des termes à chaque fois
Contrat écrit insuffisant si la réalité n’est pas cohérente avec le
contrat
Problème de l’intégration à l’entreprise
8
RECOMMANDATIONS
Contenu du contrat
Clause qui qualifie la nature de la relation
Pas d’exclusivité
Possibilité de déléguer
Liste détaillée des livrables en annexe du contrat
Pas de vacances, paiement de formation ou avantages
Pas de paiement si travail mal fait
Prévoir une estimation des frais
9
CONSÉQUENCES
DAS: impôts, charges sociales, cotisations basées sur la
masse salariale
TPS/TVQ
Retenues pour les non-résidents
Déduction des dépenses pour le travailleur autonome
Pénalités
Modalités de fin d’emploi / résiliation contrat de services
10
AUTRES CONSIDÉRATIONS
Résiliation contrat de services - conséquence inattendue en
TPS/TVQ
Si paiement à un fournisseur (par exemple un travailleur
indépendant) inscrit, suite à la résiliation de l’entente qui porte
sur des fournitures taxables
TPS/TVQ réputée incluse dans le montant payé
calcul particulier qui donne un taux de taxe différent
à prévoir dans l’entente de résiliation
11
ENTREPRISE DE PRESTATION DE
SERVICES PERSONNELS
Employé incorporé = entreprise de prestation de services
personnels (« EPSP »)
Rend des services à une personne
Raisonnable de considérer l’employé incorporé comme un
employé de la personne
Ne s’applique pas si l’EPSP emploie plus de 5 employés à
temps plein
Ne s’applique pas si l’EPSP est associée avec la corporation
qui paie l’EPSP
12
EPSP
Dépenses déductibles limitées à celles des employés
Pas de déduction pour petite entreprise → taux d’impôt plus
élevé
Taux d’imposition combiné de 39,9% (augmentation du taux
applicable au fédéral fin 2011)
L’employeur pourrait être tenu de payer les DAS non
effectuées
13
AFFAIRE AGENCE OCEANICA
Agence Océanica inc. c. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2014
QCCA 1385
Agence de placement de personnel infirmier
Les parties considèrent le personnel placé comme des
travailleurs autonomes
Pas de DAS
Vérification de Revenu Québec
Cotisation basée sur un statut d’employé (RRQ, RQAP, FSS
et CNT + pénalité 15% + intérêts)
14
AFFAIRE AGENCE OCEANICA
Décision de la Cour d’appel du Québec
Les personnes sont des employés
L’agence est l’employeur ou à tout le moins son mandataire
L’agence devrait prélever les cotisations de nature fiscale
Interprétation différente si en matière d’impôt sur le revenu?
15
EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR:
THE TAX DILEMMA
Presented by Mark A. Potechin and Héloïse Renucci
CCQ - DEFINITIONS
Section 2085
«A contract of employment is a contract by which a person, the
employee, undertakes for a limited period to do work for
remuneration, according to the instructions and under the
direction or control of another person, the employer. »
Section 2098
«A contract of enterprise or for services is a contract by which a
person, the contractor or the provider of services, as the case
may be, undertakes to another person, the client, to carry out
physical or intellectual work or to supply a service, for a price
which the client binds himself to pay to him. »
2
RELATIONSHIP OF SUBORDINATION
Section 2099 CCQ
« The contractor or the provider of services is free to choose the
means of performing the contract and, with respect to such
performance, no relationship of subordination exists between the
contractor or the provider of services and the client. »
Different approaches in civil law and common law but similar
criteria.
In civil law, the most important element is the relationship of
subordination.
3
CRITERIA FOR DISTINCTION
Control
Ownership of tools
Opportunity for profit / risk of loss
Integration
Intention of the parties, relevant criterion?
4
INTERPRETATION OF CRITERIA IN
THE CONTEXT OF THE INDUSTRY
Question of facts: courts seem to take into consideration the
particularities of the industry
For example: IT freelancers
TAP consultant inc. c. Québec (Sous-Ministre du Revenu),
2011 QCCQ 6626
5
TAP CONSULTANT CASE
Incorporated IT freelancer renders services to computer
consulting firms
Assessment based on personal services business corporation
determination
Analysis of traditional criteria
After the decision, consultations with representatives from the
industry
6
TAP CONSULTANT CASE CONTINUED
Decision
Distinction between control over the worker and control over
the end result
Intention of the parties issue
Great knowledge of a specific software - autonomy
Non-competition covenant / intellectual property
Economic criterion
7
RECOMMENDATIONS
Put in place a procedure for determination
Detailed written contract
Avoid long term contract / Prefer separate short contracts for
each retainer even if the conditions remain the same and
renegociation of the terms each time
Not sufficient to have a written contract if the reality is not
consistent with the contract
Integration within the company issue
8
RECOMMENDATIONS
Contents of the contract
Clause qualifying the nature of the relationship
No exclusivity
Possibiliy to delegate
Detailed list of deliverables as an annex to the contract
No vacation, paid training or advantages
No payment if work poorly done
Provide for an estimate of the fees
9
CONSEQUENCES
DAS: taxes, social charges, charges calculated on total payroll
GST/QST
Withholdings for non-residents
Deduction of expenses for independent contractor
Penalties
Employment termination terms / Termination of contract for
services
10
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Termination of contract for services
consequences with respect to GST/QST
-
unforeseen
If payment to a services provider (such as an independent
contractor) which is a registrant, further to the termination of an
agreement for the making of taxable supplies
GST/QST deemed to be included in paid amount
Specific calculation resulting in different sales tax rate
To be provided for in termination agreement
11
PERSONAL SERVICES BUSINESS
CORPORATION
Incorporated employee
corporation (« PSBC »)
=
personal
services
business
Renders services to a person
Reasonable to consider the incorporated employee as an
employee of the person
Doesn’t apply if PSBC employs more than 5 full time
employees
Doesn’t apply if the PSBC is associated with the corporation
paying the PSBC
12
PSBC
Deductible expenses limited to those avilable to employees
No small business deduction → Increased tax rate
Combined tax rate of 39.9% (increase to the federal tax rate at
the end of 2011)
Employer might have to pay DAS not made
13
AGENCE OCEANICA CASE
Agence Océanica inc. c. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2014
QCCA 1385
Nursing personnel employment agency
Nursing personnel were treated by parties as independent
contractors
No DAS
Audit by Revenu Québec
Assessment based on employee status (QPP, QPIP, HSF and
labour standards + penalty 15% + interest)
14
AGENCE OCEANICA CASE
Decision of the Québec Court of Appeal
Nursing personnel are employees
The agency is the employer or at least its mandatary
The agency should collect social charges
Different interpretation if income tax context?
15
Michael S. Richards
Partner
[email protected]
Suite 6000, 1 First Canadian Place PO Box 367, 100 King St W, Toronto, ON, M5X 1E2, Canada
T: +1 416 941 5395 F: +1 416 777 7427
Suite 2800, Park Place 666 Burrard St, Vancouver, BC, V6C 2Z7, Canada
T: +1 604 643 2919 F: +1 604 687 1612
Michael S. Richards is a partner specializing in employment law in
Toronto. Michael was called to the bar in both Ontario and British
Columbia and has represented clients before various levels of
courts in both provinces, before administrative tribunals, at
arbitrations, in mediation and at other negotiations, including
collective bargaining.
CREDENTIALS
Education
LL.B., University of Toronto, 1999
B.Comm., (Honours), The University of
British Columbia, 1996
Admissions
After graduating from the University of Toronto, Michael returned to
British Columbia where he was the law clerk to Madam Justice JoAnn Prowse of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Michael
articled in the Vancouver office and was called to the British
Columbia Bar before transferring to the Toronto office where he has
practised since early 2001.
Ontario
British Columbia
Languages
English
Michael’s practice in employment law includes providing advice to
both national and international organizations on a daily basis and representing clients with respect to
various labour and employment issues including:
 The recruitment, hiring and termination of employees.
 Providing advice with respect to group terminations and business closures.
 The successful and cost effective defence of wrongful dismissal claims, grievance and human right
complaints.
 The preparation of employment, consulting and independent contractor agreements including the
provision of advice with respect to the enforceability of non-solicitation, non-competition and
confidentiality agreements.
 The negotiation and interpretation of collective agreements.
 The interpretation and application of employment standards legislation, workplace safety and insurance
legislation, occupational health and safety, and human rights legislation.
Finally, Michael’s practice also includes privacy law and advising businesses in Ontario with respect to their
obligations under privacy legislation, including performing privacy audits and assisting clients in the
development of privacy policies compliant with applicable legislation.
PUBLICATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
 2015 OARTY Conference - Bridging the Gap - Grand Bend, 05 Jun 2015
 2014 Lexpert Privacy Law and Data Protection Conference - Toronto, 27 Nov 2014
 2014 Employment and Labour Law Conference Presentations - Vancouver, 08 Oct 2014
 2014 Annual Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers Presentation - Montreal, 13 Sep 2014
 The Six-Minute Labour Lawyer 2014 Presentation - Toronto, 06 Jun 2014
 2012 Annual Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers Presentation - St. John’s, 22 Sep 2012
 Member, Law Society of British Columbia
 Member, Law Society of Upper Canada
 Member, Ontario Bar Association
 Member, British Columbia Bar Association
 Member, Advocates Society
RECOGNITIONS
 Lexpert’s Litigation Lawyers to Watch, 2014
 Lexpert Rising Stars: Leading Lawyers Under 40 in Canada, 2013
 Lexpert's Litigation Lawyers to Watch, 2011
COMMENT PROTÉGER VOTRE
MILIEU DE TRAVAIL CONTRE
L’INTIMIDATION
Présenté par Michael S. Richards
Préparé avec l’aide de Katherine Ruta
Mercredi 6 mai 2015
AVANT DE COMMENCER…
Qu’est-ce que l’intimidation au travail?
Peut être des mots ou des gestes
Vexatoires ou inappropriés
La personne devait savoir ou aurait du savoir qu’ils
était inopportuns
Ne font pas partie d’une gestion de performance
légitime
DLA Piper
(Canada) S.E.N.C.R.L.
2
LES RISQUES LÉGAUX
Représailles selon la Loi sur la Santé et la
sécurité du Travail
Indemnisation pour accident du travail
Poursuites
Congédiement déguisé
Dommages majorés
Dommages punitifs
DLA Piper
3
SANTÉ ET SÉCURITÉ DU TRAVAIL
Ljubja c. Aim Group Inc. (2013)
Le superviseur lui a hurlé et crié après devant les autres
employés.
L’employé a approché les Ressources Humaines qui lui ont dit
qu’il ne serait pas puni s’il portait une plainte formelle.
Peu de temps après la plainte, l’employé a été congédié.
On lui a précisé spécifiquement que les raisons du
congédiement n’étaient pas lié à des problèmes de
performance.
L’obligation de “développer et maintenir” une politique contre
le harcèlement implique qu’aucune représaille ne peut être
faite pour avoir porté plainte.
DLA Piper
4
INDEMNITÉ POUR ACCIDENT DU TRAVAIL
La Décision no. 2156/09 (de la Commission de la sécurité professionnelle et
de l'assurance contre les accidents du travail de l'Ontario) de l’année dernière
a eu l’effet pratique de rendre les réclamations d’indemnisation
pour accident du travail en cas d’intimidation plus accessibles.
La demanderesse a été infirmière dans le même hôpital durant
28 ans. Pendant 12 ans, elle fut l’objet de cris et de
commentaires humiliants de la part d’un docteur pour lequel
elle travaillait. Les commentaires étaient faits en présence
d’autres employés.
Elle fut diagnostiquée avec un trouble d’adaptation avec état
d’anxiété et de dépression que ses médecins attribuèrent aux
facteurs de stress de son milieu de travail.
La Commission a retenu que les blessures étaient un accident
de travail devant être indemnisé.
DLA Piper
5
BOUCHER C. WAL-MART CANADA CORP.
Employée avec 8 années d’ancienneté et étant promue
régulièrement
A refusé d’altérer la lecture sur un registre de température tel
que son superviseur lui avait ordonné
A été injustement punie et a été par la suite l’objet d’abus
verbaux répétés de la part de son superviseur
Devant d’autres employés, des gérants et des clients
Wal-Mart a payé 200 000 $ pour dommages majorés,
100 000 $ pour dommages punitifs et indemnité pour
congédiement déguisé, ainsi que 140 000 $ de frais juridiques
DLA Piper
6
PRÉVENTION
AVIS
L’INTIMIDATION AU TRAVAIL
EST CONTRE LA POLITIQUE
DE LA COMPAGNIE
DLA Piper
7
DÉVELOPPEMENT D’UNE POLITIQUE
Développez une politique qui est sérieuse mais atteignable
pour permettre à votre organisation d’y donner suite. Les
éléments clés :
1. Définissez l’intimidation et le harcèlement au travail
2. Comment et à qui les plaintes doivent être faites
3. De la flexibilité pour le traitement approprié de la plainte
4. Autres obligations légales
5. Révisée et mise à jour régulièrement
DLA Piper
8
FORMATION ET SENSIBILISATION
Régulièrement
Revoir la politique
Engagement à demeurer « sans intimidation »
Fournissez des exemples de conduite
acceptables/inacceptables
Cris/injures
S’occuper des problèmes de performance
Discussions ouvertes/fermées
Façon de traiter avec les individus moins confiants
Que faire si vous êtes témoin d’un comportement inapproprié
DLA Piper
9
VISIBILITÉ
Plaintes parmi les collègues
Les superviseurs et les membres de l’équipe des Ressources
humaines doivent être présents
Événements sociaux
Aires communes
DLA Piper
10
DLA Piper
11
EXÉCUTION
Application cohérente
Perception de l’employé
RÉVISION DE LA PERFORMANCE
Cycle et format standards
Réunions structurées et programmées
Rétroactions honnêtes et complètes
Formation/conseils pour procéder à la rétroaction
Quand donner ou ne pas donner de rétroaction informelle
DLA Piper
12
HOW TO BULLYPROOF
YOUR WORKPLACE
Presented by Michael S. Richards
Prepared with the assistance of Katherine Ruta
BEFORE WE START…
What is Bullying/Workplace Harassment?
Can be words or actions
Vexatious or inappropriate
Knew or should have known was unwelcome
Not legitimate performance management
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
2
THE LEGAL RISKS
Reprisals under Occupation Health and Safety
Worker’s Compensation
Litigation
Constructive dismissal
Aggravated damages
Punitive damages
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
3
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Ljubja v Aim Group Inc. (2013)
Screamed and yelled at by supervisor in front of others
Approached HR and was told would not be punished for
making a formal complaint
Shortly after complaint was made, the employee was
terminated.
Specifically told the reasons were not due to work performance
issues.
Obligation to “develop and maintain” a harassment policy
means no retaliation for making a complaint
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
4
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
Last year’s Decision No. 2156/09 had the practical effect of
making workers compensation claims for bullying more
accessible.
The claimant had been a nurse at the same hospital for 28
years. For 12 of them she was subjected to yelling and
demeaning comments by a doctor she worked for. The
comments were made around other employees.
The claimant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with
mixed features of anxiety and depression which her doctors
attributed to workplace stressors.
The Board found the injuries compensable workplace injuries.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
5
BOUCHER V WAL-MART CANADA CORP.
Eight-year employee with regular promotions
Refused to alter the reading on a temperature log as instructed
by her supervisor
Was unfairly disciplined and then subjected to repeated verbal
abuse by her supervisor
In front of other employees, managers and customers
Wal-Mart paid $200,000 in aggravated damages, $100,000 in
punitive damages as well as damages for constructive
dismissal and $140,000 in legal costs
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
6
PREVENTION
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
7
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Develop a policy that is meaningful but attainable to follow
through on for you organization. Key components:
1. Define Workplace Harassment/Bullying
2. How complaints are made and to whom
3. Flexibility for handling the complaint appropriately
4. Other legislated requirements
5. Reviewed and updated regularly
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
8
TRAINING AND AWARENESS
Regularly
Review of policy
Commitment to remaining “bully-free”
Provide examples of acceptable/unacceptable conduct
Yelling/profanity
Addressing performance issues
Open/closed discussions
Treatment of less confident individuals
What to do if you witness inappropriate behaviour
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
9
VISIBILITY
Complaints amongst co-workers
Supervisors and HR need to be seen
Social events
Common areas
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
10
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
11
(Canada) LLP
12
IMPLEMENTATION
Consistent application
Employee perception
PERFORMANCE REVIEWS
Standard cycle and format
Structured and scheduled meetings
Honest and complete feedback
Training/guidance in delivering feedback
When to give and not to give informal feedback
DLA Piper
BULLYPROOFING YOUR WORKPLACE
By Michael S. Richards and Katherine Ruta, Articling Student
Introduction
The recent inquiry into the Jian Ghomeshi scandal concluded that the CBC failed to provide its
staff a workplace free from disrespectful and abusive behaviour. The independent investigator hired by
CBC to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding allegations made against Ghomeshi
concluded in a report that Ghomeshi’s behaviour violated CBC standards and was “considered to create
1
an intimidating, humiliating, hostile or offensive work environment”. The report also concluded that
management failed to take steps in accordance with its own policies and therefore condoned the
2
behaviour. This report could form the basis for liability of CBC in claims by employees that are sure to
unfold as a result of these conclusions.
Employers have long understood their obligation to provide a workplace free from harassment
and discrimination based on prohibited grounds, however, in recent years the obligation on employers to
protect employees from any type of harassment has emerged.
Where employers fail to do so, an
employee may have recourse against his/her employer before an administrative body (such as the
Ontario Labour Relations Board) or the courts.
In addition, workers’ compensation schemes may
compensate those with provable injuries caused by bullying thereby affecting premiums paid by
employers. Where an employee is seeking compensation for harm suffered from bullying in the
workplace, an employer’s workplace harassment policy and any steps taken in an attempt to resolve the
issue will be subject to scrutiny. Slowly but surely a legal obligation is being created for employers to
“bully-proof” their workplaces if they wish to avoid liabilities that could arise from any mistreatment of
employees.
1
“CBC inquiry concludes management mishandled Jian Ghomeshi”, CBC News (16 April 2015) online:
<www.cbc.ca/news”
2
Ibid.
CAN: 18807034.2
In addition to the potential legal risks, bullying in the workplace may create a number of hard-tomeasure costs including increased sick time, reduced productivity and higher turnover. Employers who
succeed in bully proofing their workplace may also avoid or reduce these hard to measure and intangible
costs.
The Legal Risks: Bullying and Harassment at the OLRB, WSIB and in the Courts
The law in Ontario, and in many other provinces, has evolved to include the requirement for
employers to develop and maintain effective anti-bullying or workplace harassment prevention policies. In
Ontario, the requirement is found in the Occupational Health and Safety Act ( the “OHSA”). Unlike the
parallel requirement under the Human Rights Code, the requirement under the OHSA stops short of
placing an obligation on employers to provide a harassment free workplace. As a result, in Ontario, the
OLRB, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), and the courts have all grappled with what, if
any, legal course of action is available for employees experiencing bullying or harassment at work, and
the extent to which employers are liable.
There is no doubt that legislative and judicial tolerance for bullying is stretched thin. The OLRB
accepts that bullying and harassment is a workplace safety issue. Disciplinary actions resulting from
employees complaining that workplace harassment policies were not followed may be considered an
unlawful reprisal under the OHSA. The WSIB, for its part, has removed a large barrier for claimants
seeking compensation for prolonged bullying or harassment at work. Finally, the Court of Appeal, in its
3
decision in Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. , signalled that employers would not be let off the hook if
they fail to enforce their policies effectively. Wal-Mart was ordered to pay $300,000 in damages for
mishandling a bullying complaint
The Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “OLRB”)
Prior to the enactment of Bill 168 in 2009 (the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act
(Violence and Harassment in the Workplace)) it was difficult, if not impossible, for an employee to seek
3
Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2014 ONCA 419 [Wal-Mart].
CAN: 18807034.2
enforcement of the OHSA for the harassment of employees by managers or colleagues. In a 1996
decision the OLRB dealt with whether a work refusal because of sexual harassment, and subsequent
reprisal, could be construed as an unlawful reprisal for the enforcement of the OHSA. At that time, the
OLRB concluded that the OHSA was better suited to deal with physical rather than psychological injuries
and declined to inquire into the complaint.
4
When the amendments to the OHSA came into effect in 2010, the Board once again had to
consider what role it would play, if any, in adjudicating complaints of workplace harassment and whether
a claim that an employee had been reprised against for making a complaint of workplace harassment was
a claim that the employee had been reprised against for exercising a right under the OHSA. In Conforti v
5
Investia Financial Services Inc. (2011) , the OLRB struggled with what, if any, liability might arise out of
the obligation under the OHSA to develop and maintain a workplace harassment policy. The applicant
alleged that he had been discharged for making a harassment complaint and argued this was an unlawful
reprisal. The OLRB noted that the applicant made no allegations that the employer had not fulfilled their
obligation to create a policy with respect to workplace harassment as required by the OHSA.
After engaging in a lengthy discussion around statutory interpretation, the OLRB noted that the
legislature must have considered the issue in detail when crafting Bill 168. The OLRB concluded that the
OHSA only required an employer to put a workplace harassment policy and program in place and to
provide a worker with information and instruction as appropriate. The OLRB found there were no specific
rights granted to a worker with respect to workplace harassment, and that it did not have the authority to
adjudicate upon the practical application of a policy that otherwise complied with the OHSA. In the end,
the OLRB simply declined to inquire into the complaint on the facts, but left the door open by suggesting
that if the OLRB did have jurisdiction over these kids of complaints it should scrutinize applications at the
outset.
4
5
Musty v Meridian Magnesium Products Ltd., [1996 OLRB] Rep 964.
Conforti v Investia Financial Services Inc., [2011] OLRB Rep 549.
CAN: 18807034.2
In 2013, however, the OLRB reconsidered this position and concluded that the OHSA protected
employees who were alleging that they had been reprised against for making a complaint of workplace
6
harassment. In Ljuboja v Aim Group Inc. there was an incident where an employee was belittled by his
supervisor; he was screamed and yelled at. The employee approached human resources about the
incident and was told that reporting it would not result in a reprisal against him. However, shortly after
making a formal complaint he was informed that he was being terminated and was advised the
termination was not the result of performance issues. The employee alleged that he was terminated
because he made a complaint of workplace violence and workplace harassment.
Once again, the OLRB went through the provisions of the OHSA that place an obligation on
employers to create and maintain a workplace harassment policy. The OLRB recalled that in Conforti it
did not dismiss the ability of the OLRB to hear alleged reprisal complaints arising out of workplace
harassment complaints all together. The OLRB went on to conclude that the meaning of the phrase
7
“…develop and maintain a program to implement a policy…” within the legislation must include a
requirement to ensure that the policy is carried out and complied with. It would completely undermine this
requirement to permit an employer to terminate a worker for making a complaint of workplace
harassment.
As a result, terminating a worker because they have made a workplace harassment
complaint would be terminating the worker because they sought enforcement of the OHSA or were acting
in compliance with the OHSA; namely, seeking to have their employer comply with its obligation to enable
the worker to make the workplace harassment complaint.
The OLRB did maintain its position, however, that the OHSA places no obligation on employers
to provide a harassment free workplace or to provide any specific type of investigation or outcome to a
harassment complaint. The only inquiry the OLRB will make into the underlying allegations of harassment
is whether the employer terminated, or otherwise penalized, the worker for having filed the workplace
6
7
Ljuboja v Aim Group Inc., [2013] OLRB Rep. 1298.
Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSI 1990, c 0.1, s 32.02(1) [OHSA].
CAN: 18807034.2
harassment complaint. Lastly, the OLRB will exercise its discretion to inquire into an alleged reprisal for
filing a workplace harassment complaint on a case by case basis.
Assuming the Board follows the decision in Ljuboja, going forward, it provides reasonably clear
guidance for employers with respect to their obligations under the OHSA. Employers are not tasked with
providing a harassment free workplace or guaranteeing any particular outcome of a harassment
complaint. They are however, required to develop, maintain and communicate meaningful harassment
policies and programs and they cannot terminate or reprise against an employee for making such a
complaint.
The Workplace Safety Insurance Board (the “WSIB”)
Last year, the WSIB issued an important decision for those who suffer injuries as a result of
sustained bullying or harassment at work. The decision is also worthy of employers’ attention since
worker compensation claims can impact premiums paid to the WSIB by employers. In Decision No.
8
2156/09 , the WSIB found that the distinction between thresholds for physical and psychological injuries
in the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) was discriminatory. This decision had the practical
effect of making workers compensation claims for bullying more accessible.
In this case, the employee was a nurse at the same hospital for twenty-eight years. For twelve of
those years she was subject to ill treatment by a doctor who she worked with. This included yelling and
making demeaning comments in front of both colleagues and patients. It all culminated in an incident
when the employee attempted to carry out her duties in the clinic where she worked, but the doctor
continually and repeatedly interrupted her talking with patients, told her to “shoo” and closed the door on
her heals. The employee felt the doctor was interfering with her ability to perform her job and brought her
concerns to the team leader the next day. In response, the team leader advised the employee that her
responsibilities would be significantly reduced.
8
Decision No 2157/09, 2014 ONWSIAT 938.
CAN: 18807034.2
The employee was unable to continue working. She sought medical and psychiatric treatment.
The employee described feeling pushed around, battered, humiliated, and discredited. She was
diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed features of anxiety and depression, which her doctors
attributed to workplace stressors. The employee filed a claim for mental stress with the WSIB.
The WSIB found that the provisions of WSIA dealing with mental stress put an extra burden on
employees seeking to claim compensation for psychological harm. The WSIA required that mental stress
arise out of a sudden and unexpected traumatic event. Further, mental stress claims are limited to acute
reactions in these situations. Claimants with physical injuries are not required to show that the injury was
caused by a sudden or traumatic event, and would also be entitled to benefits where the injury arose
gradually over time due to the nature of the work they performed. The WSIB declined to apply the
provisions creating the extra hurdle to the employee, and determined that she had a compensable work
place injury.
This decision should signal the level of responsibility placed on employers to avoid and
appropriately handle bullying in the work place. The WSIB has acknowledged that sustained harassment
or bullying over time can result in compensable psychological injuries. If employers do not want to see
their premiums increase, and also have employees with a decision in hand that links bullying in their work
place to a compensable injury, it would be advisable to ensure the organization has in place a program
that effectively addresses bullying and harassment.
The Courts
Last year the Ontario Court of Appeal released an important decision condemning Walmart’s
handling of an ongoing bullying problem in one of their locations. The decision shows the extent to which
the courts will examine the steps taken by employers when dealing with bullying and harassment
complaints in assessing their liability, and the financial ramifications for those found liable.
CAN: 18807034.2
9
In Boucher v Wal-Mart Canada Corp ., the plaintiff was a valued Wal-Mart employee for eight
years. Since the beginning of her employment, she received regular promotions and eventually accepted
a transfer to Wal-Mart’s Windsor store as an assistant manager. Although she initially enjoyed a good
working relationship with her manager, relations between them became problematic after an incident in
which she refused to alter a temperature log because the manager feared this oversight would reflect
poorly on him in the store’s upcoming evaluation. She was subjected to a disciplinary coaching session.
Because she felt she had been unfairly disciplined, and because she had been subjected to profane and
disrespectful language when he spoke to her, the plaintiff decided to use Wal-Mart’s Open Door
Communication Policy.
The plaintiff and one other assistant manager met with the District People Manager to speak
about their concerns with the manager. In breach of the policy, the manager was made aware of the
meeting. From the day the manager found out about the meeting he subjected the plaintiff to an
unrelenting and increasing torrent of abuse. The plaintiff met with senior management because nothing
had been done to address her complaints. The management team said they would investigate. After a
period of time Wal-Mart’s management team told the plaintiff that they had investigated her complaints
and found them unsubstantiated. They also told her that she would be held accountable for making these
unsubstantiated complaints. The court noted that little evidence was led at trial that the Wal-Mart
investigators sought information from other assistant managers who had witnessed the manager’s
abusive conduct. The plaintiff eventually quit after a particularly troublesome incident.
The plaintiff filed suit against the manager personally as well as against Wal-Mart for constructive
dismissal. At trial, the jury awarded $200,000 in aggravated damages against Wal-Mart and $1,000,000 in
punitive damages.
The jury awarded $250,000 in damages against the manager,
$100,000 for
intentional infliction of mental suffering and $150,000 in punitive damages.
On appeal, the punitive award against the manager was reduced to $10,000, however, the
damages for intentional infliction of mental distress were upheld. In reviewing the award against Wal9
Wal-Mart, supra note 3.
CAN: 18807034.2
Mart on appeal, the Court upheld the $200,000 award of aggravated damages, criticising Wal-Mart for not
taking adequate steps to bring an end to the manager’s conduct, not taking the plaintiff’s complaints
seriously, and for failing to enforce its workplace policies. In lowering the jury’s punitive damage award
against Wal-Mart from $1,000,000 to $100,000 the court noted that Wal-Mart was already liable for
significant compensatory damages, its misconduct lasted less than six months, and the employer did not
profit from its wrong. In total Wal-Mart was on the hook for $300,000 to the plaintiff plus the costs and bad
press associated with the lawsuit.
What is notable here, other than the monetary penalties, is the Court’s assessment of an
employer’s work place policies, and the steps taken (or lack thereof) in enforcing them. This decision
sends a strong message to employers to ensure their anti-bullying and workplace harassment policies are
being implemented and carried out effectively. Leaving the rather unfortunate set of facts in the Wal-Mart
case aside, it also suggests that employers need to carefully consider their policies to ensure they are not
setting the bar too high for themselves. If courts are going to review employers’ policies against actions
taken by the employer, it is important the create procedures that set reasonable standards and practices
that are both fair and attainable.
Preventive Measures: Bully-Proofing the Workplace
There is probably no limit to the number of strategies that could be proposed for preventing
workplace harassment/bullying. Since you don’t want to read this paper forever, however, we have
settled on five (5) areas that we hope will have application to a broad variety of workplaces. We have also
tried to avoid recommending or proposing a particular culture and instead have focused on principles that
should apply regardless of a particular workplace culture.
1.
Policy Development
To protect against liability, employers need to ensure that they have sound policies. In Ontario,
British Columbia and Quebec these policies are required in most workplaces. The policy should reflect
CAN: 18807034.2
the applicable legislative definition of workplace harassment/bullying. In Ontario, workplace harassment
is defined as:
Engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known
10
or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.
In Quebec, “Psychological Harassment is defined as:
vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures: that are
hostile or unwanted; that affect the employee’s dignity or psychological or physical integrity; and that
11
make the work environment harmful.
Finally, in British Columbia, WorkSafeBC has defined bullying to include
… any inappropriate conduct or comment by a person towards a worker that the person knew or
reasonably ought to have known would cause that worker to be humiliated or intimidated, but
excludes any reasonable action taken by an employer or supervisor relating to the management and
12
direction of workers or the place of employment.
The Policy should address how complaints are made and who they are made to. The ability to
request or require the complaint be made in writing should be preserved. Consideration should be given
to how the reporting will work if the person to whom the report is to be made is the alleged bully and
harasser.
To the extent possible, the Policy should ensure there is flexibility for handling the complaint in an
appropriate way. This will generally involve having an option for an informal resolution mechanism at one
end of the spectrum and a full investigation – potentially with an external independent investigator – at the
other end of the spectrum.
The Policy will also need to cover off any legislative requirements with respect to record keeping
and timelines and should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it is up to date and not in need of
revision.
10
OHSA, supra note 7 at s 1.
An Act Respecting Labour Standards, CQLR c N01.1, s 81.18.
12
WorkSafebC, OHS Policies for Bullying and Harassment (British Columbia, 2015), online:
www.2worksafebc.com
11
CAN: 18807034.2
Employers should also be keenly aware of the risks of developing a policy that overstates its
obligations and as such should create both realistic and effective policies to address workplace bullying
and harassment.
2.
Training and Awareness
Employers should ensure that they are providing training on their anti-bullying/workplace
harassment policy on a regular basis. We recommend that such training be provided at least once a
year.
The training should involve a review of the policy and of the organization’s commitment to
remaining “bully free”.
It should provide employees with examples of acceptable and unacceptable
behaviour and focus on identifying harmful behaviours. Consideration should be given to addressing:
-
when and how often yelling occurs in the workplace;
-
when and how often is profanity used;
-
when performance issues have to be addressed is this done appropriately and without an
audience;
-
are less confident individuals treated differently;
-
when are issues open for discussion and when are they not and how is this made clear.
Employers should also ensure that the organization’s stance on workplace harassment/bullying is
made clear all the time. Policies should be posted in a prominent area and advertisements that the
workplace is harassment or bully-free should be posted.
Awareness also involves employees knowing what to do when and if they witness inappropriate
behaviour.
3.
Visibility
CAN: 18807034.2
Although most workplace harassment/bullying cases involve a supervisor and subordinate
relationship there are many less serious but still time and resource consuming ones that involve incidents
amongst co-workers.
Often these incidents come to a head at social events or in common areas.
Common areas can help staff connect and build trust that will make the organization stronger. They can
also become a battlefield and poison the work environment if an employee uses that space to assert
themselves in a negative way. Social events can produce the same results. Many employers see social
events as a way to foster better working relationships by providing fun and engaging events outside of
work. However, just like common areas, social events also have the potential to give rise to bullying by
providing a forum for bullies to victimize their colleagues. Close attention should be paid to the kind of
culture that is created by these spaces and events. The attendance and visibility of supervisors and
human resources in these spaces and at these events can go a long way towards defusing and
preventing these incidents.
4.
Implementation
Once the policy is in place and the training has been conducted there needs to be a clear
response to complaints made.
If complaints are not addressed in accordance with the policy then
employers risk undermining all of the work done to this point. As complaints and the resolution of them is
a confidential matter, it is not always possible to demonstrate that you are handling complaints
appropriately. As a result, you may want to consider other methods of gathering feedback on how the
organization’s treatment of complaints is perceived such as employee surveys and open door/coffee chat
discussions with HR.
In addition, organizations should ensure policies and procedures are enforced top to bottom and
that no one is exempt. The Ghomeshi scandal provides one extreme example of a problematic
environment that can result when policies are not implemented properly. Due to his success, Ghomeshi
was considered a “god” and this status he was given created a culture of complicity regarding his
CAN: 18807034.2
misconduct.
13
Regardless of whether an employer has policies and procedures in place this kind of
culture discourages people from reporting incidences they might otherwise report.
5.
Performance Reviews and Feedback
The last step in bully-proofing your workplace is also a big step towards protecting your self from
unjustified complaints. There are two key elements that should be addressed regarding performance
reviews and feedback: (i) the formal performance review process and (ii) on the spot, informal feedback.
(i) The Formal Performance Review Process
A standard cycle and format should be established for performance reviews. Supervisors should
be encouraged and held accountable for taking this process seriously. The importance of giving honest
and complete feedback cannot be overstated. In many workplace harassment complaints the employee
provides their history of performance reviews – which show them to be a fine or even above average
employee – to demonstrate that their supervisor’s conduct towards them was harassment and not
legitimate performance management.
Where possible avoid allowing a simple rank or rating system without an explanation. If you do
require an explanation, require it in all cases, not just where a needs improvement or below average
rating is given. Where possible, ask managers to provide specific examples of good or bad performance
and provide suggestions for change or improvement.
When reviews are delivered, they should ideally be done with a representative from human
resources or another manager present. These meetings should be structured and are an opportunity for
both the manager and employee to address concerns at work. Managers should give balanced feedback,
providing examples of both good and poor performance or behaviours. Employees should be given an
opportunity to share their perspective without judgement - this should be documented - particularly if no
concerns are raised. Dates should be set for follow up if there are areas of concern.
13
Sheryl Johnson “Improving the Health of your Workplace Culture: Poor Culture can be Liability” HR
Professional, March/April 2015, at p 12.
CAN: 18807034.2
(ii)
Informal Feedback
Providing on the spot feedback can be both useful and threatening depending on the context and
the approach. Without forethought, managers may not communicate their feedback in an ideal manner
causing the employee to feel threatened. Feedback should never be given without due consideration to
how it will be perceived by the employee. Negative feedback should always be delivered discretely and
without an audience if possible. Furthermore, the purpose of the feedback should be to improve
performance not to discipline or shame the employee. If discipline is warranted, it should be delivered
formally and in an appropriate way, not off the cuff through a verbal dressing down.
Where resources permit, employers should ensure that proper training and support is given to
management in order to ensure that any feedback given by them is both effective and administered
properly. One way to ensure this is to have management and senior employees undergo training on how
to communicate, listen, express and manage more effectively.
14
Conclusion
Workplace harassment and bullying will continue to be an issue for employers. Allegations are
now being made frequently in wrongful dismissal cases that the terminated employee was harassed or
bullied to justify claims for additional damages. In order to prevent these types of claims and to have the
best defence available in the event they arise, employers have to do more than simply have a policy, they
need to be proactive and take steps to make their workplace bully free.
14
Jennifer Loh, “The Role of Human Resource Departments in Addressing Bullying Behavior” Bullying in
the Workplace: Causes Symptoms, and Remedies Edited by John Lipinksi and Laura M. Crothers, at 265.
CAN: 18807034.2
Pablo Guzman
Partner
[email protected]
T: +1 514 392 8406 F: +1 514 392 8376
Pablo Guzman is a partner in the firm's Montréal office. Pablo is a
litigator and practises in the areas of corporate law, employment,
CREDENTIALS
franchise and and commercial contracts, and the enforcement of
creditors’ rights. He routinely counsels clients in the drafting, review,
Education
management and enforcement of contracts and security instruments
B.A., Université du Québec à Montréal,
1989
in his areas of practice.
Admissions
Pablo often provides strategic counsel to boards and C-level
executives on complex litigation and compliance with businessrelated legislation, including Québec’s Consumer Protection Act, the
Charter of the French Language, the Civil Code of Québec, the
Competition Act and privacy legislation. His litigation practice also
includes acting as defence counsel in several competition law class
proceedings pursuant to the Civil Code of Québec and the
Competition Act.
Québec
Languages
English
French
Spanish
He has appeared before the Québec, Superior and Appeal Courts
and provincial, federal and international administrative and arbitration tribunals.
Pablo was born in El Salvador, Central America and moved to Canada in 1976.
He obtained a B.A. in Political Science at Université du Québec - Montréal in 1989, specializing in
international relations.
He received his Bachelor of Laws degree from the Université de Montréal in 1992.
PUBLICATIONS
 Understanding the New Temporary Foreign Worker Program, 24 Sep 2014
 Member, Mexico-Canada Chamber of Commerce
 Member, Canada-Chile Chamber of Commerce
 Member, Lord Reading Society (an association of English speaking litigation attorneys)
Lucy-Maude Lachance
Avocate
[email protected]
1501, Av. McGill College, Bureau 1400, Montréal Quebec H3A 3M8, Canada
T: +1 514 392 8419 F: +1 514 392 8380
Lucy-Maude Lachance est avocate au bureau de Montréal de DLA
Piper S.E.N.C.R.L. où elle pratique dans les domaines du litige et du
ÉDUCATION
droit de l’emploi.
Lucy-Maude travaille en collaboration avec ses collègues afin de
B.A., Affaires publiques et relations
internationales, Université Laval, 2010
représenter des clients dans un éventail de dossiers de litige,
Admise au Barreau du Québec en 2014
notamment lors de disputes contractuelles et de dossiers de
constructions, dans le cadre de recours collectifs et en
responsabilité civile. Dans le cadre de sa pratique en droit de
l’emploi, Lucy-Maude assiste les employeurs relativement à des plaintes de congédiement injustifié, et les
conseille quant aux normes du travail et quant à des enjeux touchant la législation en droits humains.
Lucy-Maude a obtenu un baccalauréat en droit de l’Université de Montréal en 2013 après avoir complété un
baccalauréat en affaires publiques et relations internationales à l’Université Laval en 2010. Pendant ses
études, Lucy-Maude a participé à l’Institut de Barcelone en droit international et comparatif de l’Université
de San Diego. Elle a aussi fait un stage à la Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du
Québec, où elle a assisté le président dans tous les dossiers juridiques affectant les membres, surtout en
ce qui a trait aux contrats d’édition, d’enregistrement et de gérance.
Lucy-Maude s’est joint à DLA Piper S.E.N.C.R.L. comme étudiante d’été en 2013, et a poursuivi comme
stagiaire puis comme avocate en 2014.
 Membre, Barreau du Québec
 Membre, Association du Jeune Barreau de Montréal
 Membre, Avocats sans Frontières Canada; Ancienne Vice-Présidente (Recherche), Comité de
l’Université de Montréal
« VOULEZ-VOUS COUCHER AVEC MOI? »
♪♫ ♫
♪♫
♪♫ ♪
♫ ♪♫
♫
Harcèlement sexuel en milieu de travail
Présenté par Pablo Guzman et Lucy-Maude Lachance
Mercredi 6 mai 2015
Définition jurisprudentielle du harcèlement
sexuel
Une conduite à connotation sexuelle
Qui revêt un caractère vexatoire et non désiré
Et qui a un effet continu dans le temps, soit en raison de sa
répétition ou de ses conséquences
DLA Piper
2
DÉFINITION JURISPRUDENTIELLE DU
HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL
Peut se manifester de diverses façons, physiques ou
psychologiques:
Gestes, paroles, signes, remarques. Par exemple :
Regarder constamment l'entrejambe et les seins d’un ou une collègue, le ou la
frôler souvent, l'embrasser dans le cou, le ou la prendre par la taille et lui faire des
propositions explicites;
Interroger une femme quant à sa poitrine, ainsi que sur sa vie intime et poser la
main sur l'un de ses seins;
Prononcer des paroles et des plaisanteries déplacées, poser des gestes et des
attouchements à caractère sexuel, proposer d'avoir des relations sexuelles et
donner une tape sur les fesses;
Mettre ses mains sur les épaules et les hanches d'une femme, lui caresser les bras
ainsi que lui demander de porter du rouge à lèvres pour être plus sensuelle;
DLA Piper
3
HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL
Faire des remarques sur la tenue vestimentaire d’un ou une collègue, lui toucher
les cuisses et lui faire des avances;
Poser des questions sur la vie sexuelle d‘un ou une collègue et sur ses habitudes
vestimentaires lorsqu‘il ou elle dort, l’inviter à s’habiller d’une manière sexy au
travail, tenter de l'embrasser et finalement le ou la séquestrer pendant 30 minutes
dans son bureau.
DLA Piper
4
HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL
Toutefois, ne constituent pas des actes à connotation sexuelle:
le fait, pour un propriétaire de restaurant, de taquiner ses serveuses et de leur
parler rudement lorsqu'il n'est pas satisfait de leur travail;
le fait, pour un dentiste, de toucher involontairement les mains et les jambes de
son assistante-dentaire durant le travail, de lui toucher le visage pour savoir si elle
fait de la fièvre, de l'inviter à souper au restaurant avec lui et ses enfants ainsi que
lui dire qu'elle est belle.
DLA Piper
5
HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL
La règle : Dire non !
Cependant, il s’avère que certains comportements sont
objectivement inacceptables à un tel point qu’aucune
manifestation de refus n’est requise de la part de la victime
Test de la personne raisonnable
DLA Piper
6
HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL
Le harcèlement peut être établi par une preuve de plusieurs
actes à connotation sexuelle (ou un seul acte grave) et
d’autres actes reliés que ce soit des menaces, des promesses
ou des représailles qui peuvent aller jusqu’au congédiement
ou à la démission forcée de la victime.
DLA Piper
7
DÉFINITION DU HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL
DANS LE CODE CANADIEN DU TRAVAIL
« Tout comportement, propos, geste ou contact qui, sur le plan sexuel: (a) soit
est de nature à offenser ou humilier une employée; (b) soit peut, pour des
motifs raisonnables, être interprété par celui-ci comme subordonnant son
emploi ou une possibilité de formation ou d’avancement à des conditions à
caractère sexuel »
DLA Piper
8
DÉFINITION DU HARCÈLEMENT
PSYCHOLOGIQUE SUIVANT LA LOI SUR LES
NORMES DU TRAVAIL
« Une conduite vexatoire se manifestant soit par les comportements, des
paroles, des actes ou des gestes répétés qui sont hostiles ou non désirés,
laquelle porte atteinte à la dignité ou à l’intégrité psychologique ou physique du
salarié et qui entraîne, pour celui-ci, un milieu de travail néfaste. Une seule
conduite grave peut aussi constituer du harcèlement psychologique si elle
porte une telle atteinte et produit un effet nocif continu pour le salarié »
À noter que le harcèlement sexuel constitue une forme de
harcèlement psychologique au sens des dispositions de la Loi
sur les normes du travail.
DLA Piper
9
DÉFINITION DE LA DISCRIMINATION BASÉE
SUR LE SEXE DANS LA CHARTE QUÉBÉCOISE
DES DROITS ET LIBERTÉS
« Toute personne a droit à la reconnaissance et à l’exercice, en pleine égalité,
des droits et libertés de la personne, sans distinction, exclusion ou préférence
fondée sur la race, la couleur, le sexe, la grossesse, l’orientation sexuelle, l’état
civil, l’âge sauf dans la mesure prévue par la loi, la religion, les convictions
politiques, la langue, l’origine ethnique ou nationale, la condition sociale, le
handicap ou l’utilisation d’un moyen pour palier ce handicap.
Il y a discrimination lorsqu’une telle distinction, exclusion ou préférence à pour
effet de détruire ou de compromettre ce droit. »
« Nul ne peut exercer de discrimination dans l’embauche, l’apprentissage, la
durée de la période de probation, la formation professionnelle, la promotion, la
mutation, le déplacement, la mise-à-pied, la suspension, le renvoi ou les
conditions de travail d’une personne ainsi que dans l’établissement de
catégories ou de classification d’emploi ».
DLA Piper
10
INFRACTIONS CRIMINELLES POUVANT
DÉCOULER DU HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL
Lorsque le harcèlement sexuel au travail mène à des
attouchements ou à du harcèlement criminel, les dispositions
du Code criminel peuvent s’appliquer:
Agression sexuelle
Harcèlement criminel
DLA Piper
11
CONSÉQUENCES POTENTIELLES
Plaintes de harcèlement psychologique à la Commission des
normes du travail
Plaintes pour lésions professionnelles (CSST)
Plaintes à la Commission des droits de la personne et des droits
de la jeunesse
Plaintes à la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne
Plaintes à Emploi et développement social Canada (pour les
employés régis par le Code canadien du travail)
Plaintes à la Commission de la fonction publique (pour les
employés du gouvernement québécois)
Plaintes criminelles
DLA Piper
12
OBLIGATIONS DE L’EMPLOYEUR
La Loi sur les normes du travail prévoit que:
« tout salarié a droit à un milieu de travail exempt de harcèlement
psychologique, et que l’employeur doit prendre les moyens
raisonnables pour prévenir le harcèlement psychologique et,
lorsqu’une telle conduite est portée à sa connaissance, pour la faire
cesser »
Le Code canadien du travail contient une disposition similaire en
plus d’imposer à l’employeur l’obligation de diffuser une
déclaration en matière de harcèlement sexuel
DLA Piper
13
OBLIGATIONS DE L’EMPLOYEUR
Les mesures devant être mises en place par un employeur
dépendront des particularités du milieu de travail. Il est notamment
suggéré :
D’établir une politique claire en matière de harcèlement au travail, tel
qu’il sera décrit plus amplement ci-après
De veiller à diffuser la politique auprès de tous les employés et voir à
son respect (remettre des copies à chaque employé et faire des
sessions d’informations)
D’agir rapidement et adéquatement lors du dépôt d’une plainte ou
lorsque l’employeur a connaissance que certains des employés posent
des gestes de harcèlement et prendre les mesures ou les sanctions
nécessaires et appropriées dans de tels cas
DLA Piper
14
ÉLABORATION D’UNE POLITIQUE
Voici des exemples de dispositions qui peuvent être incluses
dans une politique en matière de harcèlement sexuel:
Un énoncé de la raison d’être de celle-ci
Son champ d’application
Une définition du harcèlement sexuel
Une procédure de traitement en cas de plainte (voir ci-après)
DLA Piper
15
La procédure de traitement en cas de plainte :
Agir avec célérité dans la protection de la victime, le processus d’enquête, et la
sanction à imposer
Prévoir une personne en charge de recevoir les plaintes et un substitut dans le
cas où cette personne serait le harceleur
Prévoir un processus d’enquête de nature confidentielle sauf en cas de litige
S’assurer du bien-être de la victime (offrir un congé payé, de voir un médecin?)
En cas de geste grave, suspendre le présumé harceleur avec salaire pendant
l’enquête
Couper le lien hiérarchique entre la victime et le présumé harceleur le cas
échéant
Indiquer qu’aucune représaille ne sera effectuée contre un employé pour sa
participation à une enquête
Indiquer qu’une plainte frivole, faite de mauvaise foi ou avec l’intention de nuire
pourra être sanctionnée par des mesures disciplinaires allant jusqu’au
congédiement
DLA Piper
16
La procédure de traitement en cas de plainte (suite) :
Prévoir que les parties auront la possibilité de faire valoir leurs observations avant
qu’une décision ne soit rendue, ce qui implique d’indiquer au présumé harceleur
qu’il fait l’objet d’une enquête, de lui mentionner l’individu qui est à l’origine de la
plainte et quels sont les gestes qui lui sont reprochés
Si l’enquête mène à conclure qu’il y a eu, dans les faits, harcèlement sexuel,
indiquer que des mesures disciplinaires pourront être prises allant jusqu’au
congédiement
DLA Piper
17
GRADATION DES SANCTIONS
Suivre le principe de la gradation des sanctions dans le cadre de la
gestion des questions de harcèlement sexuel:
Analyse selon la gravité de la faute
Certains comportements justifient l’imposition d’une suspension
immédiate, tandis que certains types de comportement brisent le lien
de confiance entre l’employeur et l’employé et justifient un
congédiement immédiat;
Or, il faut analyser minutieusement la conduite reprochée afin d’établir
la sanction appropriée.
Voici des exemples de critères à considérer:
La gravité du harcèlement
Le nombre de victimes
Le milieu spécifique de travail
La fonction du harceleur dans l’entreprise
La clientèle de l’entreprise
Le refus d’avouer et l’absence de regret, etc
DLA Piper
18
SÉGUIN C. DESSAU INC.
À retenir:
Un employé ne peut se réfugier derrière son droit à la vie privée lors
d’une enquête pour harcèlement sexuel à son égard, et refuser de
donner sa version des faits ou de fournir certaines informations en
prétendant qu’il entretient une relation amicale en dehors des heures
de travail avec une employée
Un employeur peut prendre des mesures disciplinaires allant
jusqu’au congédiement lorsque la conduite d’un employé en dehors
des heures et du lieu de travail a un impact direct sur le milieu de
travail
La position de cadre est un facteur aggravant lors d’allégations de
harcèlement sexuel
DLA Piper
19
MERCI!
Me Pablo Guzman
(514) 392-8406
[email protected]
Me Lucy-Maude Lachance
(514) 392-8419
[email protected]
Cette présentation vise à fournir des commentaires généraux sur des développements en droit. Elle n'est pas destinée à être une revue
exhaustive, et n'a pas pour but de fournir un avis juridique. Nul ne devrait agir sur la base des informations contenues dans cette présentation
sans avoir obtenu un avis juridique spécifique quant à une situation particulière.
DLA Piper
20
« VOULEZ-VOUS COUCHER AVEC MOI? »
Sexual harassment in the workplace
Presented by Pablo Guzman and Lucy-Maude Lachance
Jurisprudential definition of sexual harassment
Conduct of a sexual connotation
Of a vexatious and undesired nature
And has a continuous effect over time, either by reason of its
repetition or consequences
2
JURISPRUDENTIAL DEFINITION OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT
It can manifest itself in various ways, physically or
psychologically:
Gestures, words, signs, remarks. For example:
Constantly gazing between the legs or looking or brushing against the breasts of a
colleague, kissing them on the neck or taking them by the waist and making explicit
propositions;
Questioning a woman about her breasts and about her sex-life and placing a hand
on her breasts;
Making inappropriate comments or jokes, touching or making gestures of a sexual
nature, proposing sexual relations or slapping the buttocks;
Placing one’s hand on a woman’s shoulders or hips, caressing the arms or asking
that the person wear lipstick to appear more sensual;
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
3
HARASSMENT
Making remarks about the clothing of a colleague, touching their thighs or making
advances;
Asking questions about the sex life of a colleague or about what clothes they wear
when they sleep, asking them to dress ‘sexy’ at work, trying to kiss them or
sequestering them for 30 minutes in their office.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
4
HARASSMENT
However, the following do not constitute acts of a sexual
nature:
The fact that a restaurant owner teased his servers or spoke with them rudely when
unsatisfied with their work;
The fact that a dentist involuntarily touched the breasts and legs of his assistant
while at work, touched her face to see if she had a fever, invited her to dinner at a
restaurant with his children or told her that she was beautiful.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
5
HARASSMENT
The rule: Say No!
However, certain behaviour is so objectively unacceptable that
no expression of refusal is needed from the victim
The reasonable person standard
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
6
HARASSMENT
Harassment can be established by proof of multiple acts of a
sexual connotation (or by a single serious act) or by other
related acts such as threats or promises of reprisal, which
could include the dismissal or forced resignation of the victim.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
7
DEFINITION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN
THE CANADA LABOUR CODE
“Any conduct, comment, gesture or contact of a sexual nature: (a) that is likely
to cause offence or humiliation to any employee; or (b) that might, on
reasonable grounds, be perceived by that employee as placing a condition of a
sexual nature on employment or on any opportunity for training or promotion.”
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
8
DEFINITION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT IN THE
ACT RESPECTING LABOUR STANDARDS
“Any vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated and hostile or unwanted
conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures, that affects an employee's
dignity or psychological or physical integrity and that results in a harmful work
environment for the employee. A single serious incidence of such behaviour
that has a lasting harmful effect on an employee may also constitute
psychological harassment.”
Of note is the fact that sexual harassment constitutes a form of
psychological harassment according to the Act Respecting
Labour Standards.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
9
DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX IN THE
QUÉBEC CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
“Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his
human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based
on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as
provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national
origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a
handicap.
Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the
effect of nullifying or impairing such right.”
“No one may practise discrimination in respect of the hiring, apprenticeship,
duration of the probationary period, vocational training, promotion, transfer,
displacement, laying-off, suspension, dismissal or conditions of employment of
a person or in the establishment of categories or classes of employment.”
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
10
CRIMINAL INFRACTIONS THAT CAN RESULT
FROM SEXUAL HARASSMENT
When sexual harassment involves sexual touching or criminal
harassment, the Criminal Code may apply:
Sexual assault
Criminal harassment
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
11
POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES
Psychological harassment complaint to the Commission des
normes du travail
Complaint for employment injury (CSST)
Complaint to the Commission des droits de la personne et des
droits de la jeunesse
Complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission
Complaint to Employment and Social Development Canada (for
employees governed by the Canada Labour Code)
Complaint to the Commission de la fonction publique (for Québec
government employees)
Criminal complaints
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
12
OBLIGATIONS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Act Respecting Labour Standards stipulates that:
“Every employee has a right to a work environment free from psychological
harassment, and that employers must take reasonable action to prevent
psychological harassment and, whenever they become aware of such
behaviour, to put a stop to it.”
The Canada Labour Code contains a similar provision in addition
to imposing on the employer, the obligation to issue a policy
statement regarding sexual harassment.
13
OBLIGATIONS OF THE EMPLOYER
Measures should be implemented by the employer depending on
the particularities of the workplace. It is suggested that employers:
Establish a clear policy regarding workplace harassment, as will be
discussed more fully below
Ensure dissemination of the policy to all employees and see to it that it
is observed (furnish copies to each employee and provide information
sessions)
Act promptly and adequately once a complaint is filed or when the
employer knows of harassment committed by certain employees, and
take any necessary and appropriate disciplinary measures.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
15
14
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Here are examples of provisions that should be included in a
policy regarding sexual harassment:
A stipulation of the purpose or objectives of the policy
The scope of application
A definition of sexual harassment
The procedures to follow in cases of a complaint (see below)
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
15
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Complaints handling procedure:
Act swiftly in protecting the victim, investigating the complaint and if necessary,
imposing a sanction
Appoint a person to receive complaints and a substitute in cases where this
person is the harasser
Provide for an investigation process that is confidential except in cases of
litigation
Assure the well-being of the victim (offer paid leave, recommend that they see a
doctor)
In serious cases, suspend the alleged harasser with pay for the duration of the
investigation
Cut the hierarchical reporting relationship between the victim and the presumed
harasser
Indicate that no reprisals will be taken against an employee for participating in
an investigation
Indicate that a frivolous complaint filed in bad faith or with the intention to harm
could result in disciplinary measures, including dismissal.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
16
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Complaints handling procedure(continued) :
Provide the parties with an opportunity to submit their observations before a
decision is rendered. This implies informing the alleged harasser that he or she is
being investigated, mentioning to them the individual that is at the origin of the
complaint, and finally, informing the alleged harasser of the impugned acts that
they are being investigated for
If the investigation is conclusive of the fact that sexual harassment occurred,
indicate that disciplinary measures could be taken, including dismissal.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
17
PROGRESSION OF DISCIPLINARY
SANCTIONS
Follow the principle of progressive disciplinary sanctions when dealing
with issues concerning sexual harassment:
Assess the situation according to the gravity of the fault committed
Certain behaviour justifies the imposition of an immediate suspension.
When the behaviour breaks the bond of trust between the employer
and employee, immediate dismissal could be justified;
It is necessary to thoroughly analyze the impugned conduct in order to
establish the appropriate sanction.
Here are examples of the criteria to consider:
The
The
The
The
The
The
gravity of the harassment
number of victims
characteristics of the workplace
position of the harasser in the company
clientele of the company
refusal by the harasser to confess, his or her absence of regret, etc.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
18
SÉGUIN V. DESSAU INC.
Of note:
An employee cannot hide behind his or her right to privacy during a
sexual harassment investigation and refuse to provide his or her
version of the facts or to furnish certain information by claiming that
he or she holds an amicable relationship with a colleague outside of
work
An employer can invoke disciplinary measures, including dismissal,
when the off-duty conduct of an employee has a direct impact on the
workplace
The fact that the harasser holds a managerial position is an
aggravating factor concerning allegations of sexual harassment
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
19
THANK YOU!
Pablo Guzman, Partner
(514) 392-8406
[email protected]
Lucy-Maude Lachance,
Associate
(514) 392-8419
[email protected]
This presentation is designed to provide general comments concerning legal developments. It is not intended to be an exhaustive review nor a
legal opinion. No one should act on the basis of the information contained in this presentation without obtaining a specific legal opinion concerning
their particular situation.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
20
MISE À JOUR DE L’ONTARIO
DÉVELOPPEMENTS RÉCENTS
Présenté par Karen R. Bock
Conférence en droit de l’emploi et du travail - Montréal
Mercredi 6 mai 2015
Changement à la législature
Projet de loi 18, Loi de 2014 sur l'amélioration du lieu de travail
au service d'une économie plus forte
Loi sur l'accessibilité pour les personnes handicapées de
l'Ontario, 2005
Depuis le 1e janvier 2015
Procédure de rétroaction accessible
Formation
Sites web accessibles
Après le 1e janvier 2016
Formats et supports de communication accessibles
Tous les exigences restantes suivant les Normes du travail
DLA Piper
2
JURISPRUDENCE
1) Directeurs emprisonnés pour violation de la Loi sur la santé et
sécurité au travail de l’Ontario
New Mex Canada Inc. - Deux administrateurs ont plaidé coupable à des
accusations en vertu de la LSST et ont reçu une sentence de 25 jours de
prison après des violations des normes de sécurité ayant conduit à la mort
d'un ouvrier d'entrepôt
L’Employeur a écopé d’une amende de 250,000$ + d’une sur-amende de
25%
2) Clause de résiliation dans le contrat de travail nulle
Clause de résiliation dans le contrat de travail prévoyait que l'employé avait
droit à une "période minimale de préavis prévu par la législation applicable,
ou à être payé un salaire tenant lieu de préavis"
Ne prévoyait pas spécifiquement le maintien des bénéfices
Clause de résiliation a violé les normes du travail - employé a droit à un
préavis raisonnable de common law
Miller c. ABM Canada Inc, 2014 ONSC 4062
DLA Piper
3
JURISPRUDENCE
3) Recours collectif intenté par des anciens employés certifié
521 employés d’un centre d’appel ont voulu faire autoriser un recours
collectif contre leur employeur, IQT, Ltd.
242 des anciens employés avaient déjà déposé des plaintes auprès du ministère
du Travail
140 anciens employés ne déposèrent aucune plainte, mais ont été évalués par le
Ministère du Travail
139 employés ne déposèrent aucune plainte ou ne furent pas bénéficiaires des
ordonnances de payer du Ministère du Travail
Les employés qui ont déposé des plaintes ont été empêchés de présenter une
réclamation pour congédiement injustifié, mais pourraient poursuivre d'autres
revendications (négligence, complot, etc.)
Les employés qui ne déposèrent pas de plaintes mais ont été évalués par le
ministère du travail ne furent pas empêchés de présenter une réclamation pour
congédiement injustifié
Brigaitis c IQT, Ltd c.o.b. en tant que IQT Solutions, 2014 ONSC 7
DLA Piper
4
ONTARIO UPDATE
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
ON THE HOME FRONT
Presented by Karen Bock
2015 Employment & Labour Law Conference - Montreal
Legislative Changes
Bill 18 - Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act,
2014
The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005
As of January 1, 2015
Accessible feedback process
Training
Accessible Websites
As of January 1, 2016
Accessible formats and communication supports
All remaining requirements under the Employment Standards
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
2
CASES OF INTEREST
1) Directors Imprisoned for Violation of OHSA
New Mex Canada Inc. - Two directors plead guilty to charges under
the OHSA and received 25 days jail time after safety violations led to
the death of a warehouse worker
Employer fined $250,000 + 25% victim fine surcharge
2) Termination Provision in Employment Contract Void
Termination provision in employment contract provided that
employee entitled to “minimum period of notice prescribed by
applicable legislation, or by being paid salary in lieu of such notice”
Did not specifically provide for continuation of benefits
Termination provision offended the ESA - employee entitled to
common law reasonable notice
Miller v ABM Canada Inc, 2014 ONSC 4062
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
3
CASES OF INTEREST
3) Class Action Brought by Former Employees Certified
521 call centre employees sought to certify a class action against
their employer, IQT, Ltd.
242 of the former employees had already filed complaints with the Ministry of
Labour
140 former employees did not file complaints, but were assessed by the Ministry of
Labour
139 employees did not file complaints or were not the beneficiaries of Ministry of
Labour orders to pay
Those employees who did file complaints were precluded from
advancing a claim for wrongful dismissal, but could pursue other
claims (negligence, conspiracy, etc.)
Those employees who did not file complaints but were assessed by
the Ministry of Labour were not precluded from advancing a claim for
wrongful dismissal
Brigaitis v IQT, Ltd c.o.b. as IQT Solutions, 2014 ONSC 7
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
4
MISE À JOUR PANCANADIENNE
MISE À JOUR DE LA
COLOMBIE BRITANNIQUE
Faire les choses différemment depuis 1871
Présenté par Michael S. Richards
Mercredi 6 mai 2015
« DOUBLES DÉDUCTIONS »
Les prestations d’invalidité à long ou à court terme sontelles déductibles de l’indemnité tenant lieu de préavis l’héritage de Waterman
Morris c. ACL Services Ltd., 2014 SCCB 1580
Gill c. Williams Lake and District Credit Union 2014 SCCB
DLA Piper
2
CE QUE VOUS NE SAVEZ PAS…..
Nouvelles lignes directrices pour les vérifications d’information faites
par les corps policiers en Colombie-Britannique
Dans le passé, il était commun que les vérifications d’information faites par
les corps policiers incluent:
des informations à propos de questions de santé mentale
des informations à propos de « question de contacts hostiles avec la
police »
Maintenant différenciez les vérifications d’information faites par les corps
policiers concernant des personnes demandant à travailler ou travailler
bénévolement avec des personnes « vulnérables » par opposition à celles
faites à propos d’employés potentiels ne le demandant pas.
DLA Piper
3
VOUS POUVEZ ENSEIGNER DE NOUVEAUX
TOURS À UN VIEUX CHIEN
BC Teacher’s Federation c. British Columbia
Législation enlevant la possibilité aux enseignants de négocier la
taille et la composition de leur groupe.
DLA Piper
4
DLA Piper
5
TROUVEZ L’EMPLOYÉ
McCormick c. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin
Devinez qui n’est pas un employé après tout!
CROSS COUNTRY CHECK-UP
BRITISH COLUMBIA UPDATE
Doing Things Differently Since 1871
Presented by Michael S. Richards
DOUBLE DIPPING
Are short/long term disability benefits deductible from pay
in lieu of notice - the legacy of Waterman
Morris v. ACL Services Ltd., 2014 BCSC 1580
Gill v. Williams Lake and District Credit Union 2014 BCSC
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
2
WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW…..
New Policy Guidelines for Police Information Checks in
British Columbia
In the past, common for police information checks to include:
information about mental health issues
information about “adverse police contact”
Now differentiate between police information checks related to
people who are applying to work or volunteer with “vulnerable”
persons as opposed to prospective employees who are not.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
3
YOU CAN TEACH AN OLD DOG NEW TRICKS
BC Teacher’s Federation v. British Columbia
Legislation removing ability of teachers to bargain class size and
composition
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
4
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
5
SPOT THE EMPLOYEE
McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin
Guess who’s not an employee after all!
Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch
Partner
[email protected]
1201 Scotia Tower 2 10060 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T5J 4E5, Canada
T: +1 780 429 6810 F: +1 780 702 4396
Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch is a partner and a member of the firm’s
Employment law group. Wendy-Anne advises employers on labour,
CREDENTIALS
employment, administrative and human rights law issues. She also
has expertise working with regulated health professions in Alberta.
Education
Wendy-Anne regularly assists clients and other lawyers by providing
B.A. (with Distinction), The King's
University College, 1995
research and analysis and by drafting comprehensive opinions, oral
arguments and written submissions for all levels of court in all areas
of the law.
LL.B (with Distinction), University of
Alberta, 1999
Admissions
Alberta
Wendy-Anne also practises in the area of environmental law. Her
Languages
experience includes advising clients regarding potential
environmental risks and liability, supporting the defence of
English
environmental prosecutions and assisting in the application process
for environmental regulatory approval.
PUBLICATIONS
 Ouch, That Hurts! Increasing Damages Awards, 19 Nov 2014
 2014 Employment and Labour Law Conference Presentations - Edmonton, 08 Oct 2014
 Member, Law Society of Alberta
 Second Vice President, University of Alberta Alumni & Friends of the Faculty of Law Association
OTHER ACTIVITIES
 Guest Lecturer, University of Alberta, DHYG 326: Law and Dental Hygiene
MISE À JOUR PANCANADIENNE
MISE À JOUR DE L’ALBERTA
Présenté par Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch
Mercredi 6 mai 2015
SPORTS ET MAGASINAGE
Connor McDavid
Notre tout premier Nordstrom (malheureusement, il est à
Calgary)
DLA Piper
2
ÉLECTION PROVINCIALE EN ALBERTA
Gouvernement conservateur progressiste depuis 1971
Élection provinciale tenue le 5 mai
Et le gagnant est ?????
DLA Piper
3
MISE À JOUR LÉGALE: DROITS DE LA
PERSONNE
L’employé a reçu une indemnité tenant lieu de préavis de 2
semaines
Le préavis requiert l’acceptation de l’offre en tant que
“règlement total et définitif de toutes les demandes
d’indemnité en rapport avec la cessation de votre emploi”
L’employé a-t-il renoncé au droit d’intenter une plainte quant
aux droits de la personne?
DLA Piper
4
MISE À JOUR LÉGALE: STATUT FAMILIAL
Un employeur a refusé de permettre à un(e) employé(e) de
travailler pendant des quarts de travail de jour
Le simple fait d’avoir une famille ou d’éprouver des
changements dans le statut familial n’accorde pas de droits
particuliers; l’employé(e) doit établir qu’il y a eu discrimination
La règle de l’employeur imposait un fardeau sur l’employé(e)
mais non sur les autres employé(e)s ne partageant pas son
statut familial.
Aucune preuve de contrainte excessive
DLA Piper
5
MISE À JOUR LÉGALE: NORMES DU TRAVAIL
Clause de “meilleurs bénéfices”
Un employeur avait une politique selon laquelle les
employé(e)s devaient utiliser leurs périodes de vacances
plutôt que le temps supplémentaire accumulé
L’application de cette politique empêchait les employé(e)s de
prendre leur vacances pendant une période ininterrompue, ce
qui viole le Employment Standards Code de l’Alberta
(« ESC »)
L’approche dite de “panier de bénéfices” ne peut pas être
appliquée en contravention des droits prévus par l’ESC
DLA Piper
6
CROSS COUNTRY CHECK UP
ALBERTA UPDATE
Presented by Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch
SPORTS AND SHOPPING
Connor McDavid
Our very first Nordstrom (sadly, it’s in Calgary)
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
2
(Canada) LLP
3
ALBERTA PROVINCIAL ELECTION
Progressive Conservative government since 1971
Provincial election held on May 5
And the winner is ?????
DLA Piper
LEGAL UPDATE: HUMAN RIGHTS
Employee received termination notice with offer of 2 weeks’
severance pay
Termination notice required acceptance of offer as “full and
final settlement of any and all claims for compensation
with respect to the termination of your employment”
Did employee waive right to file human rights complaint?
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
4
LEGAL UPDATE: FAMILY STATUS
Employer refused to place employee on straight day shifts
Mere fact of having family or experiencing change in family
status does not give rise to special entitlements; employee
must establish threshold discrimination
Employer rule imposed burden on employee not suffered by
other employees who did not share her family status
No proof of undue hardship
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
5
LEGAL UPDATE: EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
“Greater benefits” clause
Employer had policy requiring employees to use vacation time
rather than banked overtime
Application of policy prevented employees from taking
vacation in one unbroken period, which violates ESC
“Basket of benefits” approach cannot be applied to extinguish
rights under ESC
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
6
Melissa Gaul
Associate
[email protected]
T: +1 514 392 8916 F: +1 514 392 4644
Melissa Gaul is an associate in the firm's Montréal office. She
practices in the areas of corporate ̸ commercial law and employment
CREDENTIALS
law.
Education
B.C.L./ LL.B., McGill University
Melissa graduated from the McGill University Faculty of Law with a
Bachelor of Civil Law (B.C.L.) and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.). She
B.A. (First Class Honours, Dean’s
Honour List), McGill University
also holds a Bachelor of Arts (B.A., First Class Honours, Dean’s
Honour List) in English Literature from McGill University.
Admissions
Québec, 2014
During her legal studies, she competed on behalf of the McGill
University Faculty of Law at the International Mediation and
Languages
Advocacy Competition and served as a teaching assistant to Dean
Daniel Jutras.
French
English
While at McGill, Melissa was a member of the editorial board of the
McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law & Policy, serving as an Associate Editor and
later as Case Comments Editor. She also summered at a leading regional law firm in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Melissa has conducted legal research for numerous Canadian and international lawyers and organizations,
including the United Nations Development Programme and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Prior to law school, she interned at Bay Area Legal Aid in San Francisco, California and was a member of
the Habitat for Humanity National Youth Council.
Melissa joined the firm as a summer student in 2012 and completed her articles with the firm in 2014.
PUBLICATIONS
'Asphalte Desjardins' Clarifies Obligations of Québec Employers Upon Resignation of an Employee, 27
Aug 2014
But We Had a Contract! Distinguishing Appearance from Reality in Employment Contracts, 30 Jul 2014
Member, Golden Key International Honour Society
Member, Montreal Museum of Fine Arts' Young Philanthropists' Circle
RECOGNITIONS
McGill Faculty of Law, Class of ’64 Entrance Scholarship
J.W. McConnell Award
Elsie Stephen Reford Scholarship
James McGill Scholarship
Volunteer, Orchestre Nouvelle Génération
MISE À JOUR DU QUÉBEC :
DÉVELOPPEMENTS
RÉCENTS
Présenté par Mélissa Gaul
Mercredi 6 mai 2015
Jurisprudence
Québec (Commission des normes du travail) c. Asphalte Desjardins
inc., 2014 CSC 51 (CanLII)
Un décision de la Cour suprême du Canada qui clarifie les
obligations des employeurs québécois relativement aux démissions
des employé(e)s.
Daniel Guay était gestionnaire de projet pour Asphalte Desjardins
inc., une entreprise de pavage.
Son travail lui donnait accès à des informations confidentielles, telles
que les listes de prix et les détails des soumissions de l’entreprise
faites pour des contrats gouvernementaux.
DLA Piper
3
Guay était employé de façon intermittente par Asphalte Desjardins
de 1994 à 2008.
Le vendredi 15 février 2008, Guay a remis sa lettre de démission à
son employeur en raison de l’offre qu’il avait acceptée de la part d’un
concurrent.
La lettre spécifiait qu’il avait l’intention de mettre fin à son emploi trois
semaines plus tard, soit le 7 mars 2008.
DLA Piper
4
La direction n’a pas réussi à convaincre Guay à demeurer au sein de
l’entreprise.
L’employeur a mis fin à son contrat le 18 février 2008.
La date annoncée dans la lettre de démission était le 7 mars 2008.
Guay a donc réclamé une indemnité équivalente au reste des trois
semaines de préavis stipulées dans sa lettre de démission.
DLA Piper
5
La Cour suprême a conclu que les employeurs n’ont pas le droit de
renoncer à la période de préavis fournie par un employé sans
compensation.
Dans les cas comme celui de Guay, lorsqu’un employeur ne souhaite
pas que l’employé travaille pendant toute la durée du préavis,
l’employeur doit alors fournir un préavis de cessation d’emploi ou le
paiement d’une indemnité en tenant lieu.
DLA Piper
6
Points clés à retenir de cette décision :
La période de préavis stipulée par l’employé ne peut pas être
unilatéralement imposée à l’employeur.
L’employeur peut refuser l’accès au lieu de travail à l’employé, mais il
doit alors fournir un préavis de cessation d’emploi ou une indemnité
en tenant lieu.
Un employeur n’est pas tenu de fournir un préavis lorsqu’un employé
démissionne sans préavis et offre tout juste de travailler pendant une
période de temps.
DLA Piper
7
Commission des normes du travail c. Compagnie d'assurances
Standard Life du Canada, 2014 QCCQ 4523 (CanLII)
La Commission des normes du travail (CNT) réclame, au nom de la
salariée, la somme de 2301$ pour des vacances impayées.
L'employeur soutient qu’il y a compensation, au sens des articles
1672 et s. du Code civil du Québec, entre cette somme et des
avances de salaire dues par la salariée en vertu d'une convention de
remboursement.
La CNT soutient que l'employeur n'était pas autorisé à opérer
compensation et que sa demande reconventionnelle aurait dû être
déposée dans un dossier de cour distinct.
DLA Piper
8
Commission des normes du travail c. Compagnie d'assurances
Selon la Cour, la compensation est possible car:
La défense de compensation légale a été reconnue à maintes
reprises par les tribunaux.
Le deuxième alinéa de l'article 49 de la Loi sur les normes du
travail permet de faire une retenue sur le salaire si le salarié
l'autorise, ce qui a été le cas avec la convention de
remboursement.
DLA Piper
9
Législation
Projet le loi no 42 : Loi regroupant la Commission de l’équité
salariale, la Commission des normes du travail, et la Commission de
la santé et de la sécurité du travail et instituant le Tribunal
administratif du travail
Auteur: Sam Hamad, Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la
Solidarité sociale
Présenté à la 41e législature, 1re session (séance du 15 avril 2015)
DLA Piper
11
Le projet de loi « regroupe les activités » de la Commission de
l’équité salariale (CES), de la Commission des normes du travail
(CNT), et de la Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail
(CSST)
Il modifie le nom de la CSST en lui donnant celui de Commission des
droits, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CDSST).
Il institue le Tribunal administratif du Travail (TAT) qui assumera les
compétences de la Commission des lésions professionnelles (CLP)
et de la Commission des relations du travail (CRT).
Le TAT comportera quatre divisions :
la division des relations du travail;
la division de la santé et de la sécurité du travail;
la division des services essentiels;
la division de la construction et de la qualification professionnelle.
DLA Piper
12
Attention!
Programme de vérification 2015 de la Commission de
l’équité salariale (CES)
« La Commission de l’équité salariale effectue actuellement des
enquêtes à son initiative auprès d’employeurs qui devaient réaliser
un exercice d’équité salariale au plus tard le 31 décembre 2010 et
qui ne l’ont toujours pas fait. »
DLA Piper
14
DLA Piper
15
Questions? Commentaires?
Merci de votre attention.
Me Mélissa Gaul
Avocate
[email protected]
514.392.8916
QUEBEC UPDATE:
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Presented by Melissa Gaul
Montréal Employment & Labour Law Conference
Jurisprudence
Québec (Commission des normes du travail) v. Asphalte Desjardins
inc., 2014 SCC 51 (CanLII)
This is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that clarifies the
obligations of Québec employers in the context of employee
resignations.
Daniel Guay was a project manager for Asphalte Desjardins inc., a
paving company.
His job involved access to confidential information such as price lists
and the details of the company’s tenders for government contracts.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
3
Guay was employed intermittently by Asphalte Desjardins from 1994
to 2008.
On Friday, February 15, 2008, Guay provided his employer with his
letter of resignation as he had been offered a position with a
competitor.
The letter specified that he intended to terminate his contract of
employment in three weeks’ time on March 7, 2008.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
4
Management was unable to convince Guay to remain with the
company.
His contract was terminated by the employer on February 18, 2008.
The date announced in his termination letter was March 7, 2008.
Guay therefore claimed an indemnity equivalent to the remainder of
the three week notice period stipulated in his letter of resignation.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
5
The Supreme Court maintained that employers are not permitted to
renounce the notice period provided by an employee without
compensating the employee.
In cases like that of Guay, where an employer does not wish the
employee to work during the notice period, the employer will be
required to provide notice of termination or pay in lieu thereof.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
6
Key points to retain from this decision:
The notice period stipulated by the employee cannot be unilaterally
imposed on the employer.
The employer may deny the employee access to the workplace, but
will be required to provide notice of termination or pay in lieu thereof.
An employer is not required to provide notice where an employee
resigns without notice and merely offers to continue working for a
period of time.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
7
Commission des normes du travail v. Compagnie d'assurances
The Commission des normes du travail (CNT) claimed, on behalf of
an employee, a sum of $2301 for unpaid vacation.
The employer argued that compensation, pursuant to articles 1672
and following of the Civil Code of Quebec, should be effected
between the sum of $2301 and the amount owing to the employer for
salary advances due under a repayment agreement.
The CNT maintained that the employer’s cross-demand should have
been filed in a separate court file.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
8
Commission des normes du travail v. Compagnie d'assurances
According to the Court of Quebec, compensation is permitted in this
case since:
The defense of legal compensation has been recognized
repeatedly by Quebec courts.
Quebec’s An Act Respecting Labour Standards permits
deductions from an employee’s wages if the employee consents
thereto in writing (art. 49 para. 2).
The employee had consented to a deduction under the repayment
agreement.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
9
Legislation
Bill no 42 : An Act to group the Commission de l’équité salariale, the
Commission des normes du travail and the Commission de la santé
et de la sécurité du travail and to establish the Administrative Labour
Tribunal
Sponsor: Sam Hamad, Minister of Labour, Employment and Social
Solidarity
Presented at the 41st Legislature, 1st Session (Sitting held on
April 15, 2015)
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
11
The bill “groups the activities” of the Commission de l’équité salariale
(CES), Commission des normes du travail (CNT), and the
Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CSST).
It renames the CSST the Commission des droits, de la santé et de la
sécurité du travail (CDSST).
It establishes the Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT), which will
assume the responsibilities of the Commission des lésions
professionnelles (CLP) and the Commission des relations du travail
(CRT).
The ALT will sit in four divisions:
the labour relations division;
the occupational health and safety division;
the essential services division; and
the construction industry and occupational qualification division.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
12
Take Note!
2015 Audit Program of the Commission de l’équité salariale
(CES)
“The CES, on its own initiative, is currently carrying out investigations
of employers who were required to carry out a pay equity review no
later than December 31, 2010 and who have not yet done so.”
[Translation of the original French text]
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
14
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
15
Questions? Comments?
Thank you.
Melissa Gaul
Associate
[email protected]
514.392.8916
OUCH, ÇA FAIT MAL !
L’OCTROI DES DOMMAGESINTÉRÊTS EST À LA HAUSSE
Présenté par Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch
Mercredi 6 mai 2015
INTRODUCTION
En plus des dommages-intérêts tenant lieu de préavis
raisonnable, les employés congédiés sans cause juste et
suffisante peuvent avoir droit à des dommages-intérêts majorés
ou punitifs.
Les employeurs peuvent aussi être tenus d’assumer des
dommages-intérêts à la hausse dans le contexte des droits de la
personne.
L’attribution de dommages-intérêts ne cesse d’augmenter.
DLA Piper
2
PÉRIODES DE PRÉAVIS
Les employeurs qui utilisent la règle générales “un mois par
année de service continu” le font “à leur propre péril”.
Il n’y a pas de limite maximale de 24 mois pour un préavis
raisonnablepuisque la main-d’oeuvre viellit, il faut s’attendre à
ce que la période de préavis raisonnable augmente.
DLA Piper
3
DOMMAGES-INTÉRÊTS : PLUS HAUT,
TOUJOURS PLUS HAUT?
La tendance s’est orientée vers des dommages-intérêts plus
importants, particulièrement en matière de dommages-intérêts
majorés et punitifs.
Cette tendance n’est pas limitée aux Cours de justice; d’autre
décideurs sont prêts à imposer des pénalités financières
significatives à l’encontre d’employeurs fautifs.
DLA Piper
DOMMAGES-INTÉRÊTS
PUNITIFS
Prévus pour punir
l’employeur de le dissuader
d’une conduite future.
Non compensatoires.
Attribués lorsque la conduite
de l’employeur est rude,
vindicative et malveillante.
4
DOMMAGES-INTÉRÊTS
MAJORÉS
Prévus pour compenser
l’employé.
Attribués lorsque les
circonstances de
congédiement sont froides,
dégradantes ou humiliantes.
DLA Piper
5
TENDANCE: ACCROISSEMENT DES
DOMMAGES-INTÉRÊTS
A la suite de l’arrêt de la Cour Suprême Honda c. Keays,
beaucoup ont pensé que des dommages-intérêts plus
importants ne seraient plus vraiment accordés.
Des décisions récentes suggèrent que l’octroi de ces
dommages-intérêts est loin d’être révolu…
DLA Piper
6
TENDANCE: ACCROISSEMENT DES
DOMMAGES-INTÉRÊTS
Dans le passé, c’était les jurys qui avaient tendance à
accorder d’importants montants de dommages-intérêts punitifs
et les cours d’appel les réduisaient ou les supprimaient.
Aujourd’hui les juges sont prêts à imposer d’important
dommages-intérêts punitifs, et les cours d’appel semblent
enclines à vouloir les soutenir.
DLA Piper
7
RECENT DECISIONS OF INTEREST
TIPPLE C. CANADA (PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL)
(2012, CAF)
250 000 $ pour atteinte à la réputation maintenusen appel.
Les dommages-intérêts pour atteinte à la réputation sont
disponibles lorsque:
la réputation de l’employé est préjudiciée par la divulgation
publique de fausses allégations en rapport avec le congédiement;
l’employeur ne prend pas des mesures correctives raisonnables;
et
l’atteinte à la réputation de l’employé a diminué sa capacité à
trouver un nouvel emploi.
DLA Piper
9
WALSH C. MOBIL OIL CANADA
(2013, ALTA CA)
Une employée a souffert pendant des années de
discrimination grave fondées sur le genre.
Il n’y a aucune limite légale sur le montant des dommagesintérêts pouvant être octroyés pour souffrances mentales,
blessures et perte de dignité.
Lors du litige, pour l’évaluation des dommages-intérêts, la
Cour a pris en considération la position infondée de
l’employeur soutenant que le congédiement avait une cause.
DLA Piper
10
THE CITY OF CALGARY C. CUPE LOCAL 38
(2013, ALTA CONSEIL D’ARBITRAGE)
L’employée a été harcelée sexuellement à maintes reprises
par un employé senior.
En réponse le directeur a fait rehausser le bureau de
l’employée pour rendre plus difficile de l’approcher par
derrière.
L’employée a fourni des clichés d’une caméra cachée qu’elle
avait installée pour prouver le harcèlement, mais le directeur
lui a répondu que ce n’était pas concluant.
DLA Piper
11
THE CITY OF CALGARY C. CUPE LOCAL 38
(2013, ALTA CONSEIL D’ARBITRAGE)
L’employée a souffert d’importants problèmes psychologiques
en raison du harcèlement.
Le conseil d’arbitrage lui a accordé plus de 800 000 $ à titre
des dommages-intérêts et perte de salaire car l’échec de
l’employeur à corriger la situation a entrainé des séquelles
permanentes.
Aucun dommage-intérêt punitif n’a été octroyé car des
dommages-intérêts compensatoires avaient déjà été accordés.
DLA Piper
12
BOUCHER C. WAL-MART CANADA CORP
(2014, ONCA)
Le jury a accordé le plus gros montant de dommages-intérêts
punitifs lié à une affaire de droit de l’emploi au Canada; le
montant a été réduit en appel.
Le directeur harcelait psychologiquement son employée : en la
critiquant, la dégradant et l’humiliant devant ses collègues.
L’employée a rapporté la conduite abusive à la direction
supérieure, mais aucune démarche n’a été entreprise.
DLA Piper
13
BOUCHER C. WAL-MART CANADA CORP
(2014, ONCA)
Wal-Mart avait mis en place toutes les politiques nécessaires :
Politique “porte-ouverte” de communication
Politque de prévention de la violence au Travail
Politique en matière de harcèlement et de discrimination
Wal-Mart a été tenue responsable pour ne pas s’être occupée de
l’intimidation et du harcèlement dans le milieu de travail; le
directeur a aussi été tenu personnellement responsable en
raison de son comportement.
DLA Piper
14
BASTIEN C. PRO-HAIRLINES (2014, ONT LRB)
L’employé a été congédié en représailles d’avoir soulevé des
préoccupations en matière de sécurité.
En plus des dommages-intérêts pour perte de salaires d’un
montant total d’environ 17 000.00 $, la Commission a aussi
accordé des dommages-intérêts majorés de
7 500.00 $ pour cause de souffrance psychologique.
La Cour a rendu la décision disant que les dommages-intérêts
majorés sont appropriés lorsque l’employeur viole une
interdiction légale.
DLA Piper
15
OUCH!
Dommages-intérêts en matière de droits de la personne pour
atteinte à la dignité : 75 000 $
Perte de réputation : 250 000 $
Dommages-intérêts généraux : 125 000 $
Dommages-intérêts majorés : 85 000 $ à 200 000 $
Dommages-intérêts punitifs :
450 000 $ - 550 000 $ maintenus en appel
1 000 000 $ accordés par un jury et réduits à 100 000 $
DLA Piper
16
CONSIDÉRATIONS PRATIQUES POUR
LE MILIEU DE TRAVAIL
Incluez des clauses de congédiement claires dans les
contrats de travail :
Assurez-vous de vous conformer avec la législation en matière de
normes du travail.
Envisagez d’adapter les clauses aux ciconstances particulières.
Si une formule est utilisée, incluez un montant maximum.
Prévoyez comment allouer les droits et régimes d’indemnité en
cas de congédiement.
DLA Piper
17
Réfléchissez avant de faire valoir une cause juste de
congédiement :
Ne maintenez pas des allégations de cause juste sauf si vous
pouvez vraiment les appuyer.
Ne prenez pas des mesures qui pourront porter préjudice à la
réputation d’un employé dans la communauté.
Conservez le respect et la dignité de l’employé durant la procédure
de congédiement et par la suite.
DLA Piper
18
Enquêtez sur les plaintes des employés :
Si vous recevez une plainte, traitez-là avec sérieux!
Les accusations de harcèlement, de discrimination et d’abus
devraient être examinées en profondeur et promptement.
Mettez en place des politiques d’enquête approfondies et autres
politiques de travail.
Ce n’est pas suffisant d’avoir de bonnes politiques sur papier, il
faut aussi y donner suite.
DLA Piper
19
DLA Piper
20
MERCI!
WendyWendy-Anne Berkenbosch
Associée, Edmonton
780.429.6810
[email protected]
OUCH, THAT HURTS!
INCREASING DAMAGES AWARDS
Presented by Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch
INTRODUCTION
In addition to damages for payment in lieu of reasonable
notice, wrongfully terminated employees may be entitled to
aggravated damages or punitive damages.
Employers may also be on the hook for increasing damages in
the human rights context.
The damages awards keep going up and up…
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
2
NOTICE PERIODS
Employers who apply the “one month per year of service rule
of thumb” do so “at their own peril”.
There is no 24 month upper threshold for reasonable notice;
as the workforce ages, expect reasonable notice periods to
increase.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
3
DAMAGES: UP, UP AND AWAY?
The pendulum has swung towards higher damages,
particularly in regard to aggravated and punitive damages.
This trend is not only limited to the Courts; other decision
makers are also prepared to impose significant financial
penalties on errant employers.
DLA Piper
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Intended to punish the
employer to deter future
conduct.
Not compensatory.
Awarded where the
employer’s conduct is harsh,
vindictive and malicious.
(Canada) LLP
4
AGGRAVATED DAMAGES
Intended to compensate the
employee.
Awarded when the
circumstances of dismissal
are insensitive, demeaning
or humiliating.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
5
TREND: INCREASING DAMAGES
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Honda v Keays,
many thought that increased damages were less likely to be
awarded.
Recent cases suggest that these damages are far from dead…
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
6
TREND: INCREASING DAMAGES
It used to be that large punitive awards tended to be jury
awards and appellate courts would significantly reduce or
eliminate punitive awards.
Now, judges are prepared to impose significant punitive
awards, and appellate courts seem more willing to uphold
them.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
7
RECENT DECISIONS OF INTEREST
TIPPLE V CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL)
(2012, FCA)
$250,000 award for loss of reputation upheld on appeal.
Damages for loss of reputation are available where:
employee’s reputation is damaged by public knowledge of false
allegations relating to termination;
employer fails to take reasonable corrective steps; and
damage to employee’s reputation has impaired his or her ability to
find new employment.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
9
WALSH V MOBIL OIL CANADA
(2013, ALTA CA)
Employee suffered serious gender discrimination over several
years.
There is no statutory limit on the amount of damages available
for mental distress, injury and loss of dignity.
The employer’s unfounded position that the employee was
terminated for cause throughout the litigation was a factor the
court considered when assessing damages.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
10
THE CITY OF CALGARY V CUPE LOCAL 38
(2013, ALTA ARBITRATION BOARD)
Employee was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a senior
employee.
Manager’s solution was to install an extension on the
employee’s desk to make it more difficult to approach her from
behind.
Employee provided stills from a spy camera she installed
evidencing the assaults, but the manager said it was
“inconclusive”.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
11
THE CITY OF CALGARY V CUPE LOCAL 38
(2013, ALTA ARBITRATION BOARD)
Employee suffered significant psychological problems as a
result of the assaults.
The Arbitration Board awarded over $800,000 in general
damages and loss of income because the employer’s failure to
respond resulted in life-altering adverse impacts.
No punitive damages because significant compensatory
damages already awarded.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
12
BOUCHER V WAL-MART CANADA CORP
(2014, ONT CA)
Jury awarded the largest punitive award in an employment
case in Canada; award reduced on appeal.
Manager was mentally abusive towards the employee:
criticizing, demeaning and humiliating her in front of other staff.
Employee reported abusive conduct to senior management,
but no action was taken.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
13
BOUCHER V WAL-MART CANADA CORP
(2014, ONT CA)
Wal-Mart had all the necessary policies in place:
Open Door Communication Policy
Prevention of Violence in the Workplace Policy
Harassment and Discrimination Policy
Wal-Mart was held liable for failing to address bullying and
harassment in the workplace; the manager was also held
personally liable for his conduct.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
14
BASTIEN V PRO-HAIRLINES (2014, ONT LRB)
Employee fired in retaliation for raising safety concerns.
In addition to damages for lost wages totalling nearly
$17,000.00, the Board also awarded aggravated damages of
$7,500.00 for mental distress.
Court held that aggravated damages are appropriate where
the employer violates a statutory prohibition.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
15
OUCH!
Human rights damages for injury to dignity: $75,000
Loss of reputation: $250,000
General damages: $125,000
Aggravated damages: $85,000 to $200,000
Punitive damages:
$450,000 - $550,000 awards upheld on appeal
$1,000,000 jury award reduced to $100,000
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
16
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR
THE WORKPLACE
Include clear termination clauses in employment
contracts:
Ensure compliance with employment standards legislation.
Consider tailoring the clauses to the particular circumstances.
If using a formula, include a maximum amount.
Address rights and entitlements in the event of termination.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
17
THE WORKPLACE
Think carefully before asserting just cause:
Do not maintain allegations of just cause unless you can actually
back it up.
Do not take steps that will damage an employee’s reputation in the
community.
Maintain employee’s respect and dignity during the termination
process and thereafter.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
18
THE WORKPLACE
Investigate employee complaints:
If you receive a complaint, treat it seriously!
Employee allegations of harassment, discrimination and abuse
should be investigated thoroughly and promptly.
Institute sound investigative and other workplace policies.
It is not enough to have good policies on paper; you have to follow
through.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
19
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
20
THANK YOU!
WendyWendy-Anne Berkenbosch
Partner, Edmonton
780.429.6810
[email protected]
OUCH, THAT HURTS! INCREASING DAMAGES AWARDS
By Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch and Matylda Makulska
1.
Introduction
In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the quantum of damages being awarded in
employment-related claims. In addition to damages for payment in lieu of reasonable notice, wrongfully
terminated employees may be entitled to punitive or aggravated damages. Increasing damages are also
being awarded in the context of human rights complaints. In a number of recent cases, employees have
been awarded record setting damages. Clearly, the pendulum has swung towards higher damages,
particularly in regard to aggravated and punitive damages. Employers should take note: latest decision
and award trends seem to indicate that Canadian courts and tribunals are prepared to impose significant
financial penalties on errant employers.
2.
Notice Periods
It is well established that employers have an obligation to give employees notice of termination,
unless there is just cause for immediate dismissal. Where there is no just cause for dismissal, employers
must provide their employees with reasonable notice or payment in lieu thereof. The critical question to
be asked when an employee has been dismissed is: what is the length of the reasonable notice period?
To determine the amount of reasonable notice, courts will evaluate each case individually, having regard
to the character of employment, the length of service of the employee, the age of the employee and the
1
availability of similar employment, also known as the Bardal factors. However, there have been some
recent developments in the way in which courts now assess reasonable notice periods.
(a)
Is 26 Months the New Threshold?
The generally accepted upper threshold of reasonable notice in Canada has traditionally been 24
2
months. However, in the recent Ontario Superior Court case of Hussain v Suzuki Canada Ltd, a 35 year
employee was awarded 26 months' reasonable notice. The case involved a 65 year old Assistant
Warehouse Supervisor who had worked for Suzuki continuously for nearly 36 years. The employee had
1
2
Bardal v Globe & Mail Ltd, [1960] OJ No 149 (Ct. J).
[2011] OJ No 6355 (SC).
18661828.1
lost his job due to corporate restructuring as a result of economic hardship. The court noted that the
employee’s skills were general skills obtained on the job and were less marketable than skills that are the
product of a definable trade, and that the employee was near the end of his working years. Although each
of the Bardal factors on their own were not exceptional, the court held that the combination of factors
amounted to exceptional circumstances that warrant a 26-month notice period.
Employers ought to take note: there is no cap on the amount of reasonable notice to which an
employee may be entitled, since each case must be considered on its own merits. If a court finds that
“exceptional circumstances” exist in any given case, an employer could be on the hook for a large sum of
money, totalling more than 24 months reasonable notice.
(b)
The Old “Rule of Thumb”
Traditionally, there was a “rule of thumb” applied in employment law. According to this rule, a
terminated employee was entitled to one month of reasonable notice per year of service. Although the
rule has the benefit of being predictable, certain and easy to apply, it is clear that there is no longer a true
“rule of thumb” for determining how much notice an employee is entitled to upon termination. The courts
have made it clear that each case is to be assessed based upon its own particular circumstances. The
3
Ontario Court of Appeal in Minott v O’Shanter Development Company Ltd held that the rule of thumb
approach suffers from two deficiencies: “it risks overemphasizing one of the Bardal factors, length of
service, at the expense of the others; and it risks undermining the flexibility that is the virtue of the Bardal
4
test.” As such, it is clear that there is no single measure to determine the amount of reasonable notice
that an employee is entitled to.
More recently, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Capital Pontiac Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd v
5
Coppola held that the rule of thumb was no longer supported by the majority of cases. Furthermore, the
court stated that “while employers may wish to use the one month’s notice per year of service rule of
thumb as a guideline in their day-to-day decision-making given its apparent facility, they do so at their
3
[1999] OJ No 5 (ONCA).
Ibid at page 21 (QL).
5
2013 SKCA 80.
4
18661828.1
DLA Piper (Canada) S.E.N.C.R.L. | 2.
6
own peril because the rule is not supported by the jurisprudence and is inconsistent with Bardal.” As
such, employers should resist the temptation of identifying an easy way to calculate notice periods. At
common law, calculating notice periods requires a contextual analysis taking into account several factors,
with each case determined on its merits. There are no hard and fast rules.
3.
Trend: Increase in Damages Awards
7
In 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada in Honda Canada v Keays redefined the law of damages
in the context of employment. In particular, the court held that extending the notice period was not an
appropriate way to compensate for manner of dismissal, and that punitive damages were restricted to
cases of wrongful acts that were so harsh, malicious and reprehensible so as to justify punishment and
denunciation. As a result of this case, it was thought by many that extended awards and punitive
damages were effectively no longer available in wrongful dismissal cases. However, recent cases
suggest that aggravated and punitive damages are far from dead. Importantly, this trend of increased
aggravated and punitive damages is not limited only to wrongful dismissal claims, but also arises in the
context of Human Rights Tribunals. Also of significance is the fact that previously, large punitive awards
tended to be jury awards, and appellate courts, for the most part, had either significantly reduced or
eliminated punitive awards. As the cases below demonstrate, judges are now prepared to impose
significant punitive awards, and appellate courts are increasingly willing to uphold them.
The object of punitive damages is to punish an employer in order to deter future unfair conduct.
Punitive damages are not aimed at compensating the employee. These damages are exceptional and are
awarded only when the employer’s conduct is deserving of punishment because it is harsh, vindictive,
8
reprehensible and malicious. In the employment context, aggravated damages may be awarded to
compensate an employee when the circumstances of dismissal are insensitive, demeaning or humiliating.
9
Employers are held to an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal. Aggravated
6
Ibid at para 22.
2008 SCC 39.
8
Ibid at para 68.
9
Boucher v Wal-Mart Canada Corp, 2014 ONCA 419 at para 67.
7
18661828.1
damages are compensatory in nature (not punitive), and are awarded when the plaintiff’s actual injuries
have been aggravated by the defendant’s behaviour.
10
The following cases provide some sobering examples of recent awards.
In Higginson v Babine Forest Products Ltd and Hampton Lumber Mills Inc,
11
the employee
worked for the employer for 34 years prior to the termination of his employment. He had worked as an
electrical supervisor in a sawmill where the closure was imminent. The employee took the position that his
employer’s allegations of just cause for termination were an attempt to avoid providing him with
reasonable pay in lieu of notice. The allegations of just cause failed and the employee was granted 24
months’ notice, with some deduction for failure to mitigate. A jury awarded the employee $236,000 in
compensatory damages for wrongful dismissal and $537,000 in punitive damages. This was the highest
award of punitive damages in a Canadian wrongful dismissal case at the time, until Boucher v Wal-Mart
12
(discussed further below).
The Federal Court of Appeal in Tipple v Canada (Attorney General)
13
addressed the issue of
damages when the employee experienced loss of reputation arising from the suggestion that his
employment was terminated due to misconduct. The adjudicator awarded approximately $1.4 million in
damages to the former employee, including: nearly $690,000 for lost wages, $110,000 for lost
performance bonus, $110,000 for lost benefits, $125,000 for psychological injury, $250,000 for loss of
reputation and over $45,000 for obstruction of process. The adjudicator found that the employer’s actions
had contributed to the employee’s damages, and the employer had not taken steps to minimize the
damage to his reputation that they should have taken. On judicial review, the Federal Court set aside the
award of damages for psychological injury, loss of reputation, and obstruction of process. The court
believed the employee was entitled to moral damages, but felt that the amount was too high and sent the
matter back to the adjudicator to be reassessed. On appeal, however, the Federal Court of Appeal
accepted that the employee’s reputation was damaged by false accusations related to his termination and
restored the $250,000 award for loss of reputation. In doing so, the Court of Appeal held that damages for
10
th
Lewis Klar, Tort Law, 4 ed (Toronto: Thomson Canada Limited, 2008) at 121.
2010 BCSC 614.
12
Supra note 9.
13
2012 FCA 158.
11
18661828.1
loss of reputation stemming from a wrongful termination are available where: (a) the employee’s
reputation is damaged by public knowledge of false allegations relating to the termination; (b) the
employer fails to take reasonable corrective steps and offers no reasonable excuse for such failure; and
(c) the damage to the employee’s reputation impaired his or her ability to find new employment.
A self-represented litigant in Kelly v Norsemount Mining Inc
15
14
achieved a significant punitive
damage award of $100,000. The employee alleged that he was dismissed because he insisted on
compliance with securities regulations. The employer, on the other hand, alleged the employee was
dismissed for cause on the basis of fraud and incompetence. The employer maintained those allegations
for seven years, and threatened to bankrupt the employee in an attempt to dissuade him from pursuing
his legal rights. In awarding punitive damages, the British Columbia Supreme Court held that the
employer breached its duty of good faith and conducted itself both at the time of termination and
afterwards in a manner that could be described as harsh, vindictive, reprehensible and malicious. The
court further determined that since the general damages award was relatively small, an additional and
significant award of punitive damages was necessary to effectively deter the employer.
Interestingly, in Morgan v Herman Miller Canada Inc,
16
the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
awarded damages of $70,000 to a former employee, despite finding that no discrimination had occurred.
The Tribunal determined that the employee had not established on a balance of probabilities that he was
assigned menial and demeaning tasks because of his colour. The employer eventually terminated the
employee alleging just cause on the basis that the employee’s “campaign of misinformation” caused
unnecessary alarm amongst co-workers. The Tribunal held that the employer’s decision to terminate the
employee’s employment was made as a reprisal for expressed concerns about harassment and
discrimination. As such, the employee was awarded 14 months’ lost wages and $15,000 as damages for
injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. It was further ordered that the employer have its human rights
policies reviewed and its managers trained in their application. In addition, the individual manager
14
Ibid at para 16.
2013 BCSC 147.
16
2013 HRTO 650.
15
18661828.1
responsible for the termination was directed to undergo human rights training (despite the fact that the
manager was no longer with the employer).
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision of Cassidy v Emergency Health
Services Commission (No 5)
17
is particularly significant in the context of damages, not for the size of the
award, but for the fact that the individual manager was held jointly and severally liable. The employee,
who had multiple sclerosis, worked as a paramedic. As a result of his disability, he was not able to
manually palpate a pulse. The Tribunal found both the employer and the manager liable for failing to
accommodate the employee after his suspension from duty. Not only did the manager fail to support the
employee in his search for accommodation, the Tribunal also noted that the manager took steps intended
to thwart the employee’s efforts to be accommodated and actively sought to keep the employee out of an
ambulance. This conduct justified a finding of personal liability against the manager. As such, the Tribunal
awarded $22,500 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, as well as damages for lost wages and
benefits. These damages were payable jointly and severally by the employer and the manager. This
means that both parties were responsible for the full amount of the obligation.
In Walsh v Mobil Oil Canada,
18
the employee filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights
Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of gender over a period of several years. The employee
was initially hired as a junior map clerk, and although she received several promotions while working for
the employer, she also faced serious gender discrimination. Neither her pay scale nor her designations
kept pace with her actual responsibilities, her abilities, her education, or the pay and designations of her
male peers. When the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the employee’s first complaint, the
employer terminated her employment claiming it had cause to do (this claim was later rejected by the
Court of Queen’s Bench). The exclusive focus of the Alberta Court of Appeal in this decision was about
remedy. In considering the appropriate award for general damages, the court noted that in Alberta there
is no statutory limit on the amount of damages available for mental distress, injury and loss of dignity
flowing from discriminatory conduct. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s award of $25,000, but
reasoned that the award was on the low end of what was appropriate in the circumstances, given the
17
18
2013 BCHRT 116.
2013 ABCA 238.
18661828.1
wilfulness of the employer’s conduct, the duration of the conduct, the damaging impact on the employee,
and the untenable position that the employer maintained throughout the litigation that the employee was
terminated for cause.
In Tl’azt’en First Nation v Joseph,
19
the Federal Court gave further direction about when it is
appropriate to award aggravated and punitive damages. The employee was employed by the First Nation
for more than 30 years prior to his dismissal. After the employee sent a letter to the executive director
criticizing his management style, the executive director began to target the employee with unsupported
claims of fraud and mismanagement. As a result of the threatening and harassing conduct, the
complainant’s health deteriorated to the point that he was compelled to take medical leave. While on
medical leave, the executive director proceeded to widely distribute accusations of criminal wrongdoing,
insubordination and sexual assault of another employee. The employee was then fired without notice.
With regard to aggravated damages, the Federal Court reasoned that the adjudicator awarded the
aggravated damages flowing from the manner in which the employee was dismissed, and that $85,000
was entirely justifiable given the heavy handed conduct in this case. With regard to punitive damages, the
court further reasoned that $100,000 was justifiable as the employer’s conduct was reprehensible,
dishonest, malicious, deliberate, despicable, deceitful and in bad faith.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently rendered a decision in Pate Estate v Galway-Cavendish
and Harvey (Township)
20
where it held that significant punitive damages were appropriate. The case
involved a building inspector who was dismissed without notice. The employer alleged that the employee
kept permit fees. The employee was criminally charged and eventually acquitted. It was later determined
that the employer had withheld exculpatory evidence from the police, and the court concluded that had
this evidence been provided to the police, the former employee would not have been criminally charged in
the first place. Although the trial award of punitive damages was reduced from $550,000 to $450,000, this
is the second largest punitive damages award to survive review by an appellate court in the employment
19
20
2013 FC 767.
2013 ONCA 669.
18661828.1
law context.
21
This case is significant not only because of the size of the award, but also because the
original award was by a trial judge and not a jury. The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal.
In keeping with the trend of damages awards increasing, in IBM Canada Limited v Waterman,
22
the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that employers may not deduct earned pension benefits from
wrongful dismissal damages. The employee had been a long-time member of IBM’s defined benefit
pension plan and had a fully vested interest in the plan when he was terminated without cause with two
months’ notice. Both his employment contract and the plan were silent on employee rights and
entitlements in the event of termination without cause. The Supreme Court determined that the private
insurance exception applied in this case, which provides that payments from private insurance are not
typically deductible from damage awards. Furthermore, the contract of employment did not contain any
general bar against receiving full pension entitlement and employment income. The court also considered
broader policy objectives and, in particular, was concerned that allowing the deduction would create an
economic incentive for employers to dismiss their pensionable employees before other employees.
Though this case holds that pension payment should not typically be deducted from wrongful dismissal
damages, the Supreme Court has left open the possibility for employers to expressly stipulate in the
employment agreement that wrongful dismissal damages and pension benefits will not be paid
simultaneously. Since this case was decided in 2013, it has already been applied in several decisions.
In The City of Calgary v CUPE Local 38,
24
23
an employee of the City of Calgary’s Roads Division
was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a senior employee, including repeated fondling while she was at
her desk. When the employee reported the assaults to her manager, his solution was to install an
extension on the employee’s desk to make it more difficult to approach her from behind. At a meeting with
the manager, the employee described the assaults and provided stills from a spy camera she had
installed, however, the manager found the evidence to be inconclusive. She subsequently went on a
21
The largest punitive jury award in an employment law case to survive appeal was in McNeil v Brewers
Retail Inc, 2008 ONCA 405. The jury awarded $500,000 in punitive damages and the Ontario Court of
Appeal upheld the award.
22
2013 SCC 70.
23
Morris v ACL Services Ltd, 2014 BCSC 1580; Lethbridge Industries Ltd v Alberta (Human Rights
Commission), 2014 ABQB 496; and Liu v Everlink Services Inc, 2014 HRTO 202.
24
2013 CanLII 88297 AB GAA.
18661828.1
stress-related medical leave of absence and was hospitalized twice for contemplating suicide. An
independent medical examination concluded that the sexual assaults and their aftermath were the
primary causal factors of the employee’s psychological difficulties and would require extensive treatment
to improve her functioning. The Arbitration Board awarded the employee $125,000 in general damages,
as well as over $700,000 for damages for loss of income, on the basis that the city’s failure to respond to
the situation resulted in a serious and life-altering adverse impacts. Interestingly, the Board declined to
award punitive damages, observing that punitive damages are only awarded when the compensatory
damages are insufficient to accomplish the purpose of retribution, deterrence and denunciation, and in
this case, significant compensatory damages were already awarded.
The decision of Kelly v University of British Columbia (No 4)
25
is significant, as the British
Columbia Human Rights Tribunal awarded the complainant $75,000 in damages for injury to dignity,
which is more than double the previous highest award for this type of injury set in 2008.
26
The
complainant was a medical resident at UBC Medical School. He suffered from ADHD and had a nonverbal learning disability. After failing his first rotation in the residency program, he disclosed his
disabilities and was asked to see a psychiatrist. In 2007, the complainant was dismissed from the family
medicine residency program for unsuitability. In making the award for injury to dignity, the Tribunal noted
the following factors: the effect of the termination on the complainant’s ability to fulfill his lifelong dream of
practising medicine; the humiliation and embarrassment he experienced when he was forced to seek
employment in medicine-related fields; the impact on his personal life; and the fact that he was in a
vulnerable position in that he was a student who had a disability. This case may signal the court’s
increasing willingness to increase this kind of damages award in the future.
In Boucher v Wal-Mart,
27
the jury awarded the largest punitive award in an employment law case
in Canada, however, this award was subsequently reduced on appeal. The former employee complained
that her relationship with her immediate supervisor turned sour after an incident in May 2009 in which she
refused to falsify a temperature log. The employee alleged that this caused the manager to be mentally
25
2013 BCHRT 302.
The previous highest damages awarded for injury to dignity was $35,000, awarded in Senyk v WFG
Agency Network (BC) Inc, 2008 BCHRT 376.
27
Supra note 9.
26
18661828.1
abusive towards her, criticizing, demeaning and humiliating her in front of other staff. When the employee
complained of her supervisor’s conduct to Wal-Mart’s senior management, she was told that her claims
were unsubstantiated. Wal-Mart did not take any action against the supervisor. At trial, the jury found that
the employee had been constructively dismissed and awarded $1 million in punitive damages and
$200,000 in aggravated damages as against Wal-Mart, and $100,000 for intentional infliction of mental
suffering and $150,000 in punitive damages as against the supervisor personally. The Ontario Court of
Appeal reduced the punitive damages against the supervisor on the basis that since the other damages
were so high, the compensatory award carried a strong punitive element. As such, the supervisor’s
punitive damages were reduced to $10,000 and Wal-Mart’s punitive damages were reduced to $100,000.
Although the Court of Appeal reduced the portion of the award representing punitive damages, it upheld
other aspects, leaving the employer liable for a large sum of money. Employers ought to be aware that
failing to address bullying and harassment in the workplace could lead to a claim for constructive
dismissal and may itself constitute conduct causing mental distress that can give rise to an award for
aggravated damages.
28
In Bastien v 817775 Ontario Limited c.o.b. Pro-Hairlines, the Ontario Labour Relations Board
ordered the employer to pay aggravated damages, in addition to lost wages, after firing an employee in
retaliation for raising safety issues. The employee worked in a hair salon. While in the process of
unplugging her cellphone charger from the power bar used generally to plug in her hairstyling equipment,
the employee suffered a serious electrical shock. Although the employee’s doctor recommended that she
required a week off work, the employer refused to grant the leave and instead directed that she work
reduced hours. The employer took no steps to address the hazardous situation. The employee filed a
health and safety complaint in respect of her employer, at which point the employer terminated her. The
Board found that the employee was dismissed in retaliation for raising safety concerns and awarded lost
wages. The Board also awarded aggravated damages for mental distress, stating that such damages are
appropriate where the employer violates a “statutory prohibition.”
29
The Board stated that “the awarding of
aggravated damages for employer conduct…is called for all the more where that conduct is violative of a
28
29
2014 CanLII 65582 (ON LRB).
Ibid at para 27.
18661828.1
statutory norm designed the protect workers - a vulnerable group whose relationship with employers is
one of unequal balance of power.”
30
The employer was ordered to compensate the employee by way of
aggravated damages in the amount of $7,500 by reason of her dismissal contrary to Ontario’s
Occupational Health and Safety Act.
As we can see, while all of these cases have different facts, the result is often the same: courts
are increasingly willing to punish employers for what the court views as poor conduct in the course of the
employment relationship and following termination.
30
Ibid at para 35.
18661828.1
Practical Considerations for the Workplace
4.
The cases explored in this paper help to illustrate the extent to which Canadian courts and
Tribunals are prepared to award extensive damages against errant employers. The old “rule of thumb” no
longer applies, and employers should not think that previous maximums awarded by courts will protect
them from further liability. However, there are steps employers can take to limit potential damages that
may be awarded against them.
As a starting point, employers should include clear and concise termination clauses in their
employment contracts, limiting notice periods or payment in lieu of notice. In order to increase the
enforceability of these clauses, employers should consider tailoring those clauses to the circumstances.
For instance, in the case of a lower level employee, the minimum amounts set out in employment
standards legislation may be appropriate. However, in the case of a higher level employee, consider
using a formula for calculating notice periods that includes a maximum amount payable. In addition, in
cases where a departing employee signs a release following termination, it is important that the release is
clear and concise, and that the employer is forthright when presenting it to the employee.
31
Where a court
is satisfied that the release is drafted using simple plain language and it was clearly explained to the
employee, it is likely that an employer can limit liability for any future claims raise by the former employee.
The importance of setting out each party’s entitlement in the employment contract cannot be
understated. For instance, as stated previously, in IBM Canada Limited v Waterman,
32
the employment
contract was silent on rights and entitlements in the event of termination without cause. Though this case
held that pension payments should not typically be deducted from wrongful dismissal damages, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility for employers to expressly stipulate in the employment contract
that wrongful dismissal damages and pension benefits would not be paid simultaneously.
Following the termination of an employee, employers should think carefully before asserting just
cause. Allegations of just cause should not be maintained throughout litigation, unless an employer is
prepared to fully substantiate those claims. Otherwise, a court may consider this as a factor when
31
32
Marquardt v Strathcona County, 2014 AHRC 3.
Supra note 22.
18661828.1
assessing the damages awarded to the former employee. For instance, in Walsh v Mobil Oil Canada,
33
the fact that the employer maintained throughout the litigation that the employee was terminated for
cause, even though this was entirely unfounded, was a factor in the court determining that the lower
court’s damages award was on the low end of reasonable. Further to this point, employers ought not to
take steps that have the effect of damaging an employee’s reputation in the community. As seen in Tipple
34
v Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court of Appeal accepted that the employee’s reputation was
damaged by false accusations relating to his termination, and awarded $250,000 for loss of reputation.
In addition, employers must not underestimate the importance of investigating employee claims
thoroughly and promptly. It is essential for employers to have an investigative process; not only can it
identify potential situations giving rise to a need for action or accommodation at an early stage, but it can
also lead to an effective resolution of workplace issues. Workplace investigations relied upon by
employers in subsequent civil or human rights proceedings will be subject to intense scrutiny. As we have
seen, in City of Calgary v CUPE Local 38,
35
the Arbitration Board awarded over $800,000 in damages,
largely due to the city’s failure to respond to the employee’s complaints. In that case, the employee was
sexually assaulted several times by her supervisor, both before and after she made her initial complaint.
Employers must take note: if you receive a complaint, treat it seriously!
It is clear that having a sound investigative policy in place is an important step in minimizing
potential damages claims, however, it is not enough to merely have good policies on paper. The entire
workforce needs to know what the policies mean, and, if there is a breach, that management will react
quickly and competently. The case of Boucher v Wal-Mart
36
is instructive on this point: despite the fact
that Wal-Mart is a large sophisticated organization, it was still held liable for the misconduct of an
employee. Wal-Mart had all the necessary policies in place: the Open Door Communication Policy, the
Prevention of Violence in the Workplace Policy and the Harassment and Discrimination Policy. The
employee testified that despite these policies, she was subject to harassment which led her to quit her
job. As such, employers ought to be aware that failing to address bullying and harassment in the
33
Supra note 18.
Supra note 13.
35
Supra note 24.
36
Supra note 9.
34
18661828.1
workplace could lead to a claim for constructive dismissal and may itself constitute conduct causing
mental distress that can give rise to an award for significant damages.
5.
Conclusion
It is likely that the trend of courts and tribunals increasing damages awards will continue.
Employers must take the potential for these awards into account while striving for best practices in the
difficult circumstances of terminating an employee. The message that is being conveyed by the courts is
that employers ought to ensure that employees are treated appropriately during the course of
employment and at the time of termination. Otherwise, the employer could be on the hook for a large sum
of money.
18661828.1
André Giroux
Partner
[email protected]
T: +1 514 392 8912 F: +1 514 392 8379
André Giroux is a partner in the firm’s Montréal office. André
practises employment law and advises employers on collective
bargaining, restructuring and downsizing of workforces, wrongful
dismissals, human rights, privacy legislation, grievance arbitration,
labour standards and alternative dispute resolution.
CREDENTIALS
Admission to Quebéc Bar, 1993
BA.A, Université du Québec à
Montréal, 1988
André represents employers before federal and provincial labour
boards, privacy commissions, human rights tribunals, grievance
arbitrators, federally appointed adjudicators as well as mediators
and conciliators.
He also represents clients before the courts of civil jurisdiction such as the Superior Court and the Court of
Appeal of Quebec, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.
PUBLICATIONS
 'Asphalte Desjardins' Clarifies Obligations of Québec Employers Upon Resignation of an Employee, 27
Aug 2014
 But We Had a Contract! Distinguishing Appearance from Reality in Employment Contracts, 30 Jul 2014
 Canadian Bar Association
QUOI DE NEUF, DOCTEUR?
AMENDEMENTS AU CODE
CANADIEN DU TRAVAIL
Présenté par André Giroux
Mercredi 6 mai 2015
SYNDICATS : ACCRÉDITATION ET
RÉVOCATION D’ACCRÉDITATION
Point général
La loi sur le droit de vote des employés (projet de loi C-525)
entrera en vigueur le 16 juin 2015.
Elle vient modifier:
les conditions d’accréditation des syndicats, en la rendant plus
difficile;
les conditions de révocation de l’accréditation, en la rendant plus
facile.
2
Accréditation des syndicats - Régime actuel :
Accréditation automatique du syndicat : aucun scrutin de
représentation avec vote secret si le syndicat a l’appui de plus
de 50% des employés d’une unité de négociation habile à
négocier.
Scrutin de représentation obligatoire : seulement si l’unité de
négociation n’est pas déjà représentée par un syndicat et que
35% à 50% (inclusivement) des employés de l’unité appuient
le syndicat.
Note: la preuve de l’appui pour négocier peut être faite par le
simple dépôt des demandes d’adhésion signées et des reçus de
paiement à la cotisation syndicale (au moins 5 $).
3
1
Accréditation des syndicats - Nouveau régime (en vigueur
le 16 juin 2015) :
Scrutin de représentation obligatoire avec vote secret pour
toutes les demandes d’accréditation faite à compter du 16 juin
2015.
Pour la tenue du scrutin, le syndicat doit avoir l’appui de 40%
ou plus des employés de l’unité de négociation.
Le scrutin est alors valide si plus de 35% des employés de
l’unité de négociation ont voté.
Pour obtenir l’accréditation il faut alors la majorité (50%+1) des
votants.
4
Révocation de l’accréditation - ce qui ne change pas :
Seul un employé de l’unité de négociation peut demander la
révocation ou l’absence de représentativité du syndicat
reconnu comme l’agent négociateur de son unité de
négociation.
L’employé ne doit pas être un cadre de l’entreprise.
La preuve du seuil minimal de représentation peut se faire en
déposant des déclarations individuelles d’employés ou des
pétitions.
5
Révocation de l’accréditation - ce qui ne change pas :
Si l’employé atteint le seuil minimal de représentation, un
scrutin de représentation aura lieu avec vote secret pour tous
les membres de l’unité de négociation concernée.
Pour que le vote soit valide, il faut qu’au moins 35% des
employés admissibles aient voté.
Pour obtenir la révocation il faut la majorité des votants
(50%+1), ces derniers devant être admissibles, i.e. faire partie
de l’unité de négociation concernée au moment du dépôt de la
demande.
6
2
Révocation de l’accréditation - ce qui change
au 16 juin 2015 :
Régime actuel : l’employé qui demande la révocation doit
atteindre un seuil de représentation supérieur à 50% des
employés membres de l’unité de négociation.
Nouveau régime : le seuil minimal de représentation à
atteindre par l’employé demandant la révocation est à 40%
des employés membres de l’unité de négociation.
Note: dans le cas d’une demande au Conseil pour mettre fin à la
représentativité d’un agent négociateur, le régime du seuil
minimal de représentativité change également passant de 50%
à 40%.
7
SANTÉ ET SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL
Loi sur le soutien de la croissance de l’économie et de l’emploi
au Canada (projet de loi C-4) est entrée en vigueur le 31
octobre 2014.
Elle modifie :
la définition du terme « danger »
le processus applicable aux enquêtes reliées au droit de refus de
travailler en cas de danger
8
Nouvelle définition du mot “danger”
Le ministère des Finances a établi qu’au cours des 10
dernières années (2003-2013), dans plus de 80% des refus de
travail pour danger, il n’y avait pas vraiment de danger.
L’ancienne version se lisait comme suit:
« Situation, tâche ou risque — existant ou éventuel —
susceptible de causer des blessures à une personne qui y est
exposée, ou de la rendre malade — même si ses effets sur
l’intégrité physique ou la santé ne sont pas immédiats —,
avant que, selon le cas, le risque soit écarté, la situation
corrigée ou la tâche modifiée. Est notamment visée toute
exposition à une substance dangereuse susceptible d’avoir
des effets à long terme sur la santé ou le système
reproducteur ».
9
3
La nouvelle définition se lit comme suit :
« Situation, tâche ou risque qui pourrait vraisemblablement
présenter une menace imminente ou sérieuse pour la vie ou
pour la santé de la personne qui y est exposée avant que,
selon le cas, la situation soit corrigée, la tâche modifiée ou le
risque écarté. »
10
Nouvelle définition du mot “danger”
La nouvelle définition est plus restrictive et n’inclut plus les
notions de « situations de risques éventuels » qui sont
« susceptibles de causer des blessures ». Au contraire, le
danger devient vraisemblable et doit présenter une menace
imminente.
Cette définition ressemble à la notion de « danger » prévalant
avant sa modification au début des années 2000 ; il est donc
possible que les tribunaux changent leur interprétation de ces
dernières années.
Douze causes pendantes devant le Tribunal de santé et
sécurité au travail Canada.
11
Fardeau de preuve des employés pour refus de travailler en
cas de danger
La loi supprime la notion d’effets “non immédiats” et la
possibilité raisonnable qu’un risque se produise pour refuser
de travailler.
Elle ajoute le fardeau de prouver qu’une situation présente une
“menace imminente ou sérieuse”, ce qui peut être plus
restreint.
12
4
Processus d’enquête pour refus de travailler en raison d’un
danger
La loi supprime la fonction “d’agent de santé et de sécurité” qui
est au cœur du système d’enquête pour refus de travailler.
Le processus commence dorénavant par une enquête interne
au sein de l’entreprise entre l’employeur et l’employé.
Si, à l’issue de cette enquête, la situation n’est pas réglée, et
que l’employé maintient son refus de travailler, alors (dans
certains cas) l’employeur ou l’employé peut renvoyer le
dossier devant le ministre.
13
14
Organigramme – Nouvelle procédure à
suivre en cas de r efus de travailler en cas
de danger dans le milieu de travail
Source : Gouvernement du Canada, Programme du travail
(http://www.travail.gc.ca/fra/sante_securite/pubs_ss/refuser.shtml)
CONGÉDIEMENT SANS CAUSE
Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, 2015 FCA 17
Un employé travaille depuis plus de 4 ans au sein d’Énergie
atomique du Canada limitée (« EACL ») et est congédié sans
cause en 2009.
EACL lui offre 6 mois de salaires comme indemnité de
congédiement, ce que l’employé refuse.
L’employé dépose une plainte pour congédiement injuste.
15
5
Décision unanime qui établit que le Code canadien du travail
ne prévoit pas un “droit à l’emploi”.
Un congédiement sans cause n’est pas automatiquement
requalifié de congédiement injuste, et ne permet donc pas
forcément d’utiliser le recours prévu par le Code canadien du
travail.
Cependant, la Cour souligne qu’un congédiement sans cause
n’enlève pas l’obligation de l’employeur de donner un préavis
raisonnable ou une indemnité en tenant lieu.
16
6
WHAT’S UP DOC?
AMENDMENTS TO THE
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Presented by André Giroux
UNIONS : CERTIFICATION AND
REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATION
General points
The Employees’ Voting Rights Act (Bill C-525) will come into
force on June 16, 2015.
It is aimed to modify:
the conditions of union certification by making them more exigent;
the conditions of revoking certification by making them less
exigent.
2
Certification of unions - existing regime:
Automatic certification of the union: no representation vote by
secret ballot if the union has the support of more than 50% of
the employees in the bargaining unit.
Obligatory representation vote by secret ballot: only if the
bargaining unit is not already represented by a union and 35%
to 50% (inclusively) of the employees in the unit support the
union.
Note: proof of support to negotiate can be made by the filing of a
signed application for membership and the receipt of union dues
in the amount of at least $5.
3
Certification of unions - new regime (in effect as of June 16,
2015):
Mandatory representation vote by secret ballot for all
certification petitions filed as of June 16, 2015.
For the vote, the union must gain the support of 40% or more
of the employees in the bargaining unit.
The vote is valid if more than 35% of the employees in the
bargaining unit have voted.
To obtain certification, the majority of voters must vote in
favour (50%+1)
4
Revocation of certification- what won’t change:
Only an employee of a bargaining unit can petition for
revocation or the absence of the representative character of
the union recognized as the negotiating agent of his or her
bargaining unit.
The employee must not be part of the managerial staff of the
company.
The proof of meeting the minimum threshold of representation
is made by the filing of the individual declarations of the
employees or the petitions.
5
Revocation of certification- what won’t change:
If the employee reaches the minimum threshold of
representation, a representation vote by secret ballot will take
place involving all the members of the concerned bargaining
unit.
For the vote to be valid, at least 35% of admissible employees
must vote at the time of the petition
Obtaining revocation requires a majority of votes (50%+1). The
voters must be admissible to vote (i.e. be a member of the
concerned bargaining unit).
6
Revocation of certification- what will change on June 16,
2015:
Existing regime: the employee that petitions for revocation
must reach a representation threshold of above 50% of the
employees that are members of the bargaining unit.
New regime: the minimum representation threshold that the
employee petitioning for revocation must reach is 40% of the
employees that are members of the bargaining unit.
Note: In cases of a petition to the Board in order to put an end to
the representativity of a bargaining agent, the threshold also
passes from 50% to 40%.
7
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND
SAFETY
Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act (Bill C-4)
came into effect on October 31, 2014.
It modified :
the definition of the term “danger”
the applicable process for investigations related to the right to
refuse to work in cases of danger
8
SAFETY
New definition of the word “danger”
The minister of finance determined that over the previous 10
years (2003-2013), in more than 80% of cases of refusal to
work because of danger, there wasn’t any real danger.
The old version reads as follows :
“any existing or potential hazard or condition or any current or
future activity that could reasonably be expected to cause injury
or illness to a person exposed to it before the hazard or
condition can be corrected, or the activity altered, whether or not
the injury or illness occurs immediately after the exposure to the
hazard, condition or activity, and includes any exposure to a
hazardous substance that is likely to result in a chronic illness, in
disease or in damage to the reproductive system”
9
SAFETY
The new definition reads as follows:
“Any hazard, condition or activity that could reasonably be
expected to be an imminent or serious threat to the life or
health of a person exposed to it before the hazard or condition
can be corrected or the activity altered.”
10
SAFETY
New definition of the word “danger”
The new definition is more restrictive and does not include the
notions of “situations of eventual risk” that are “susceptible to
cause injury.” Contrarily, the danger must be probable and
must present an imminent threat.
The definition resembles the notion of “danger” used in the
early 2000’s; it is therefore possible that the courts will change
their interpretation of the recent years.
Twelve pending cases before the Occupational Health and
Safety Tribunal Canada.
11
SAFETY
The burden of proof for employees refusing to work in the
case of danger
The law removes the notion of “non-immediate effects” and the
reasonable possibility that a risk could be realized for refusing
to work.
It adds the burden of proving that a situation presents an
“imminent or serious threat,” which may be narrower.
12
SAFETY
Investigation process for refusal to work because of danger
The law removes the function of the “health and safety officer”
which is at the core of the investigatory system for refusals to
work.
The process commences henceforth with an internal
investigation within the company between the employer and
the employee.
If as a result of this investigation, the situation is not resolved,
and the employee maintains his refusal to work, then (in
certain cases) the employer or the employee can refer the
matter to the minister.
13
14
Workplace R efusal to work flow
chart
Source : Gouvernement of Canada, labour programs
(http://www.travail.gc.ca/fra/sante_securite/pubs_ss/refuser.shtml)
DISMISSAL WITHOUT GOOD AND
SUFFICIENT CAUSE
An Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (“AECL”) employee with
more than 4 years of work experience is dismissed without
cause in 2009.
AECL offers him 6 months of salary as severance pay, which
the employee refuses.
The employee files a complaint for unjust dismissal.
15
Unanimous decision establishing that the Canada Labour
Code does not provide for a “right to employment.”
A dismissal without cause does not automatically equate to
unjust dismissal and does not necessarily permit resort to the
recourses provided for in the Canada Labour Code.
However, the court emphasizes that a dismissal without cause
does not negate the obligation of the employer to provide
reasonable notice or an indemnity in lieu thereof.
16
Julio Mena
Associate
[email protected]
T: +1 514 392 8435 F: +1 514 392 8396
Julio Mena is an associate in the Montréal office. His practice is
focused on business immigration law, litigation and employment law.
CREDENTIALS
Education
Julio assists clients with a range of Canadian immigration matters,
including work permit applications for executives, managers and
LL.L. (cum laude), University of Ottawa,
2011
specialized knowledge workers (intra-company transfers) and
A.E.P., Immigration Consultant, LaSalle
College, 2007
applications for permanent residence under the economic class and
family reunification (sponsorship) programs. He gained first-hand
knowledge of immigration procedures and practices by working at
Citizenship and Immigration Canada and by participating in a legal
research project for Pro Bono Students Canada. Before law school, he completed a professional program
to become an immigration consultant.
Julio’s litigation experience includes drafting pleadings and conducting research for senior counsel in
commercial matters. His employment law practice includes assisting employers with drafting and reviewing
employment contracts and internal policies.
Julio obtained his LL.L. from the University of Ottawa in 2011 and expects to receive his Juris Doctor from
the Université de Montréal in 2014. At the University of Ottawa, Julio was elected Secretary of Lawyers
Without Borders (University of Ottawa’s Division). While at the Université de Montréal, he participated in the
Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot Competition in Vienna, Austria in 2013.
He joined the firm as a summer student in 2010 and as an associate upon his call to the Québec Bar.
Julio speaks English, French and Spanish fluently.
PUBLICATIONS
 Understanding the New Temporary Foreign Worker Program, 24 Sep 2014
RECOGNITIONS
 Reach Canada’s Student of the Year award, 2011
DROIT DE L’IMMIGRATION D’AFFAIRES
NAVIGUER LES EAUX DU
NOUVEAU PROGRAMME DES
TRAVAILLEURS ÉTRANGERS
TEMPORAIRES
Présenté par Julio Mena
Mercredi 6 mai 2015
QU’EST-CE QUE LE PTET?
Le PTET est un programme d’immigration qui permet aux
employeurs canadiens d’embaucher des étrangers afin de
combler des pénuries temporaires de main-d’œuvre et de
compétences
Le PTET est géré conjointement par Emploi et Développement
social Canada (EDSC) et Citoyenneté et Immigration Canada
(CIC)
Naviguer les eaux du nouveau PTET
2
QUELS CHANGEMENTS ONT ÉTÉ
APPORTÉS AU PTET?
CONTEXTE
Le 20 juin 2014, le Gouvernement fédéral a introduit d’importants
changements au PTET
Le 30 avril 2015, des changements supplémentaires ont été introduits
au PTET
OBJECTIF PRINCIPAL DE CES CHANGEMENTS
Assurer que les citoyens canadiens et les résidents permanents soient
les premiers à avoir accès aux emplois au Canada
FAITS SAILLANTS DE CES CHANGEMENTS
La réorganisation du PTET
La mise en œuvre de l’exigence d’une Étude d’impact sur le marché du
travail (EIMT - anciennement Avis relatif au marché du travail)
L’augmentation importante des frais de traitement
L’établissement d’un régime de conformité plus strict
3
LA RÉORGANISATION DU PTET
Le PTET a été regroupé en deux grandes catégories:
1. PTET
Cette catégorie sert comme dernier recours pour permettre aux employeurs
canadiens de pourvoir des postes pour lesquels il n’y a pas de citoyens
canadiens ou de résidents permanents qualifiés
Celle-ci couvre des volets qui requièrent une EIMT
Le ministère responsable: EDSC
2. Programmes de mobilité internationale
Cette catégorie sert à défendre les intérêts économiques et culturels globaux
du Canada
Celle-ci couvre des volets qui sont exemptés de la condition d’avoir une
EIMT (i.e. ALENA et d’autres accords applicables de libre-échange, emploi
réciproque, etc.)
Le ministère responsable: CIC
4
LA MISE EN ŒUVRE DE L’EXIGENCE
D’EIMT
La notion d’EIMT dans la catégorie du PTET
Normes minimales en matière de recrutement
Les employeurs doivent afficher le poste recherché pendant un
minimum de 28 jours, sauf certaines exceptions (i.e. démarche
simplifiée au Québec)
L’affichage doit respecter des conditions spécifiques
Les postes doivent demeurer affichés jusqu’à ce qu’une décision soit
prise à propos de la demande d’EIMT
Conseils pratiques:
Soyez précis lorsque vous rédigez les exigences de l’emploi
Veuillez tenir compte des exigences linguistiques
N.B.: il existe des variations aux normes minimales en matière de recrutement pour certains postes et dans
certain(e)s provinces/territoires
5
LA MISE EN OEUVRE DE L’EXIGENCE
D’EIMT
Volets principaux du PTET
Volet rémunération élevée
Volet rémunération peu élevée
Volet des postes éligibles au délai de 10 jours ouvrables
Volet agricole
Programme des aides familiaux résidents
6
D’EIMT
QUÉBEC
Est-ce que la procédure pour demander une EIMT est différente
au Québec comparativement aux autres provinces? OUI!
Démarche simplifiée (l’employeur n’est pas soumis aux conditions
d’affichage) ou démarche générale?
Pour des postes situés au Québec, les employeurs doivent
soumettre leurs demandes d’EIMT en français
Déterminer le salaire à offrir au TET
7
D’EIMT
Évaluation quant au salaire c. Évaluation quant aux
compétences
Est-ce que le poste est syndiqué? Si oui, l’employeur est tenu
d’afficher et d’offrir les mêmes taux de salaires que ceux
établis dans le cadre de la convention collective
Les salaires ne doivent pas être inférieurs au taux de salaire
courant pour le poste et le lieu de travail
Les employeurs doivent revoir et ajuster (si nécessaire) le salaire
de TET après 12 mois d’emploi
N.B. : le salaire courant est reconnu comme le salaire horaire médian tel que publié sur le site Guichet
Emploi
Les salaires ne doivent pas être inférieurs au salaire minimum
fédéral ou de la province/territoire
8
D’EIMT
Les choses à savoir lorsqu’on embauche sous le volet
de la rémunération peu élevée
Limite établie concernant les TETs pour des postes à
rémunération peu élevée
Les employeurs avec 10 employés ou plus à l’échelle du pays
embauchant des TETs à rémunération peu élevée seront
assujettis à une limite de 10 % sur la proportion de TETs à
rémunération peu élevée (N.B. cette limite s’applique par lieu de
travail)
EDSC a décidé de mettre en place graduellement l’application de la limite
afin de permettre aux employeurs de changer et d’ajuster leurs effectifs
Il y a certaines exceptions à cette exigence
9
D’EIMT
Les choses à savoir lorsqu’on embauche sous le volet de la
rémunération peu élevée
Durée des permis de travail
La durée des permis de travail pour des postes à rémunération peu
élevée sera limitée à un maximum d’un an (sous l’ancien régime, la
durée maximale des permis de travail était de deux ans)
Obligations des employeurs
(i) payer les frais de transport aller-retour pour le TET;
(ii) assurer la disponibilité d’un logement abordable pour le TET;
(iii) payer pour une couverture médicale jusqu’à ce que le TET soit
couvert par l’assurance maladie de la province;
(iv) enregistrer le TET auprès de la Commission de la sécurité
professionnelle et de l’assurance contre les accidents du travail de la
province ou du territoire;
(v) fournir un contrat employeur-employé
10
D’EIMT
Les choses à savoir lorsqu’on embauche dans des régions
où le chômage est élevé
EDSC refuse de traiter certaines demandes d’EIMT visant
les secteurs de l’hébergement, des services de
restauration et du commerce de détail dans les régions
économiques ayant un taux de chômage de 6 % ou plus
11
D’EIMT
Les choses à savoir lorsqu’on embauche sous le volet
de la rémunération élevée
Plan de transition
Sauf certaines exceptions, les employeurs embauchant sous le volet
de la rémunération élevée doivent soumettre un plan de transition
Un plan de transition vise à assurer que les employeurs ont mis en place un
plan ferme pour passer à un effectif canadien
Un employeur peut effectuer différentes activités pour satisfaire à cette
condition
Les employeurs doivent rapporter les résultats de leur plan de
transition lorsqu’ils redemandent une nouvelle EIMT pour le poste en
question situé au même endroit ou dans le contexte d’une inspection
12
L’AUGMENTATION IMPORTANTE DES
FRAIS DE TRAITEMENT
Selon les nouvelles règles du PTET, les frais de procédure pour
une demande d’EIMT ont augmenté passant de 275 $ à 1 000 $
D’autres frais à considérer:
Certificat d’acceptation du Québec (pour le Québec seulement)
= 191 $
Frais applicables pour l’examen de l’offre d’emploi (pour le Québec
seulement) = 191 $
Permis de travail = 155 $
Depuis le 21 février 2015, les employeurs doivent fournir des
informations additionnelles et payer de nouveaux frais relatifs à la
conformité de 230 $ pour les demandes de permis de travail des
catégories exemptées d’EIMT
Également, de nouveaux frais de privilège de 100 $ doivent être payés
pour les demandes de permis de travail ouverts
13
L’ÉTABLISSEMENT D’UN RÉGIME DE
CONFORMITÉ PLUS STRICT
Conformité
Augmentation du nombre d’enquêtes et d’inspections (il est à
prévoir que chaque année, un employeur sur quatre utilisant le
PTET fera l’objet d’une inspection)
Liste noire, suspension et révocation
Amendes (jusqu’à 100 000 $)
14
CONSEILS PRATIQUES
Consultez fréquemment les sites internet officiels de CIC et
EDSC pour les mises à jour du PTET
Respectez vos conditions et engagements de l’EIMT
Mettez en place des politiques, guides et protocoles internes
qui traitent:
de l’embauche des TETs
de la mise en conformité avec les règles du PTET (plans de
transitions, obligations de rapport, etc.)
de la rémunération des TETs
de la rétention des documents associés au recrutement et à
l’emploi de TETs (i.e. affichages de postes, demande d’EIMT,
offres d’emploi, CVs, etc.)
15
BUSINESS IMMIGRATION LAW
NAVIGATING THE WATERS
OF THE NEW TEMPORARY
FOREIGN WORKER
PROGRAM
Presented by Julio Mena
Montreal Employment and Labour Law Conference
WHAT’S THE TFWP?
The TFWP is an immigration program that allows Canadian
employers to hire foreign nationals to fill temporary labour and
skill shortages
The TFWP is jointly managed by Employment and Social
Development Canada (ESDC) and Citizenship and
Immigration Canada (CIC)
2
WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE
TFWP?
BACKGROUND
On June 20, 2014, the federal government introduced significant
changes to the TFWP
On April 30, 2015, additional changes were introduced to the TFWP
MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THESE CHANGES
Ensure that Canadian citizens and permanent residents have the first
opportunity for positions in Canada
HIGHLIGHTS OF THESE CHANGES
The re-organization of the TFWP
The implementation of the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA formerly Labour Market Opinion) requirement
The introduction of higher processing fees
The establishment of a stricter compliance regime
3
THE RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE TFWP
The TFWP was regrouped into two main categories:
1. TFWP
This category is aimed to serve as a last resort for Canadian employers to fill
positions for which qualified Canadian citizens or permanent residents are
not available
It covers streams that require a LMIA
Lead government department: ESDC
2. International Mobility Programs
This category is aimed to advance Canada’s broad economic and cultural
national interest
It covers streams that are exempted from the LMIA requirement (i.e. NAFTA
and other applicable free trade agreements, reciprocal employment, etc.)
Lead government department: CIC
4
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LMIA
REQUIREMENT
The notion of LMIA in the TFWP category
Minimum advertisement requirements:
Employers are required to advertise the sought position for a minimum
of 28 days, save certain exceptions (i.e. facilitated process in Quebec)
The advertisement must meet specific conditions
The advertisements must remain posted until a decision is made
regarding the LMIA application
Practical tips:
Be precise when drafting the job requirements
Take into account the applicable language requirements
N.B.: there are variations to the recruitment and advertisement requirements for specific occupations
and in particular provinces/territories
5
REQUIREMENT
Primary streams of the TFWP
High-wage stream
Low-wage stream
Stream for occupations eligible to a 10 business day service
standard
Primary agricultural stream
Live-in caregiver program
6
REQUIREMENT
QUEBEC
Is the process to apply for a LMIA different in Quebec when
compared to other provinces? YES!
Facilitated process (employer is not subject to the advertisement
requirements) or regular process?
Employers must submit their LMIA applications in French for
positions located in Quebec
Establish the salary that will be offered to the TFW
7
REQUIREMENT
Wage assessment vs. Skill level assessment
Is the position unionized? If yes, the employer must advertise
and offer the same wage rates as those established under the
collective agreement
Wages must not be below the prevailing wage rate for the
sought occupation and work location
Employers must review and adjust (if necessary) the TFW’s wage
after 12 months of employment
N.B.: the prevailing wage rate is identified as the median hourly wage as published on Job Bank
Wages must not be below any applicable federal or
provincial/territorial minimum wage rates
8
REQUIREMENT
Things to know when hiring under the low-wage stream
Established cap on low-wage TFWs
Employers with 10 or more employees nationally hiring TFWs for
low-wage positions will be subject to an established cap of 10 %
on the proportion of low-wage TFWs (N.B. the cap applies per
work site)
ESDC has decided to phase-in the application of the cap requirement to
allow employers to transition and adjust their workforce
There are exceptions to the cap requirement
9
REQUIREMENT
Things to know when hiring under the low-wage stream
Duration of work permits
The duration of work permits for low-wage positions will be limited
to a maximum of one year (under the previous regime, the
maximum duration of work permits was two years)
Employer’s obligations
(i) pay for round-trip transportation for the TFW;
(ii) ensure affordable housing is available for the TFW;
(iii) pay for private health insurance until the TFW is eligible for
provincial health coverage;
(iv) register the TFW with the provincial/territorial workplace safety
board;
(v) provide an employer-employee contract
10
REQUIREMENT
Things to know when hiring in areas of high unemployment
ESDC refuses to process certain LMIA applications in the
Accommodation, Food Services and Retail Trade sectors in
economic regions with an unemployment rate at or above 6%
11
REQUIREMENT
Things to know when hiring under the high-wage stream
Transition plan
Save certain exceptions, employers hiring under the high-wage
stream are required to submit a transition plan
A transition plan is aimed to ensure that employers have a firm plan in
place to transition to a Canadian workforce
There are different activities that may be conducted by an
employer to meet this requirement
Employers need to report on the results of their transition plans
when re-applying for a new LMIA for the occupation in question at
the same location or in the context of an inspection
12
THE INTRODUCTION OF HIGHER
PROCESSING FEES
Under the new TFWP rules, the processing fees to submit an
LMIA application increased from $275 to $1,000
Other fees to consider:
Quebec Certificate of Acceptance (Quebec only) = $191
Fees applicable to the evaluation of the employment offer (Quebec
only) = $191
Work permit = $155
Since February 21, 2015, employers are required to provide
additional information and to pay a new compliance fee of $230
when submitting work permit applications under certain LMIAexempted categories
Also, a new privilege fee of $100 must be paid for open work
permits
13
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STRICTER
COMPLIANCE REGIME
Compliance
Increasing number of investigations and inspections (it is expected
that one in four employers using the TFWP will be inspected each
year)
Blacklist, suspension and revocation
Fines (up to $100,000)
14
PRACTICAL TIPS
Frequently consult CIC’s and ESDC’s official websites for
updates on the TFWP
Stick to your LMIA conditions and engagements
Implement internal policies, guidelines and protocols that deal
with:
the hiring of TFWs
the compliance of TFWP rules (transition plans, reporting
obligations, etc.)
the compensation of TFWs
the retention of documents associated with the recruitment and
employment of TFWs (i.e. job advertisements, LMIA application,
job offers, resumes, etc.)
15
Tania da Silva
Avocat
[email protected]
T: +1 514 392 8427 F: +1 514 392 1999
Tania da Silva est une avocate du bureau de Montréal de DLA Piper
S.E.N.C.R.L. Elle pratique dans les domaines du litige commercial et
LL.L, Université d'Ottawa, 2008
du droit de l’emploi.
LL.B., Université d'Ottawa, 2007
Tania s’est jointe à l’équipe de DLA Piper S.E.N.C.R.L. en 2009 après
B.Sc.Soc., Concentration en
criminologie, Université d'Ottawa, 2004
avoir complété son stage avec le cabinet.
Québec
Dans le contexte de sa pratique en droit de l’emploi, Tania fournit
des conseils aux employeurs en matière de réclamations pour
congédiement injustifié, ainsi que sur des questions portant sur les
normes du travail, les droits de la personne et la vie privée. Elle se consacre également à intervenir devant
les tribunaux pour faire respecter des clauses restrictives, ainsi qu’à rédiger et réviser de contrats d’emploi,
de manuels d’employés et de politiques d’entreprise, y compris les codes de conduite. Tania fourni aussi
des conseils aux employeurs sur l’embauche, la discipline progressive et la mise à pied, le licenciement et
le congédiement d’employés.
 Membre de l''Association du Jeune Barreau de Montréal
COMMENT GÉRER VOS
ACCOMMODEMENTS RAISONNABLES :
UN GUIDE POUR LES
EMPLOYEURS
Présenté par Tania da Silva et Melissa Gaul
Mercredi 6 mai 2015
Caron c. Commission des lésions professionnelles, 2014
QCCS 2580 (CanLII)
L’article 49 de la Charte des droit et libertés de la
personnne « confère un vaste pouvoir de redressement à
la CLP lorsqu'une violation de la charte est constatée,
notamment à l'égard des normes appliquées par
l'employeur pour déterminer s'il existe un emploi
convenable et même pour annuler le congédiement, le
cas échéant. »
DLA Piper
Les principes de base
2
Hydro-Québec c. Syndicat des employé-e-s de techniques
professionnelles et de bureau d'Hydro-Québec, section locale 2000
(SCFP-FTQ) [2008] 2 RCS 561, 2008 CSC 43 (CanLII)
McGill University Health Centre c. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital
général de Montréal, 2007 SCC 4 (CanLII)
La situation doit être évaluée de manière globale;
L’employé a un rôle à jouer dans le processus d’accommodement;
Le devoir d’accommodement n’est ni absolu, ni sans limite;
L’employeur doit démontrer qu’il ne peut accommoder le plaignant
sans subir une « contrainte excessive »; et
Le standard est celui de la « contrainte excessive » et non celui de
« l’impossibilité ».
DLA Piper
4
Le test développé dans l’arrêt Meiorin est clarifié par la Cour Suprême :
La norme a été adoptée dans un but rationnellement lié à l’exécution
du travail en cause;
L’employeur a adopté la norme en croyant sincèrement qu’elle était
nécessaire pour réaliser un but légitime lié au travail; et
La norme est raisonnablement nécessaire pour réaliser ce but
légitime lié au travail.
L’employé ne peut pas être accommodé sans que l’employeur ne
subisse une contrainte excessive.
DLA Piper
5
McGill University Health Centre c. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital
« Le caractère individualisé du processus d’accommodement ne
saurait être minimisé. En effet, l’obligation d’accommodement varie
selon les caractéristiques de chaque entreprise, les besoins particuliers
de chaque employé et les circonstances spécifiques dans lesquelles la
décision doit être prise. »
« […] lorsque l’employeur fait une proposition qui est raisonnable, il
incombe à l’employé d’en faciliter la mise en œuvre. Si l’absence de
coopération de l’employé est à l’origine de l’échec du processus
d’accommodement, sa plainte pourra être rejetée. »
« […] l’obligation d’accommodement incombe toutefois à l’employeur
qui doit faire la preuve qu’il a évalué les mesures possibles
d’accommodement et s’il en vient à la conclusion qu’il ne peut
l’accommoder sans en subir une contrainte excessive, il doit en faire la
preuve. »
DLA Piper
6
« CONTRAINTE EXCESSIVE »
Plastiques TPI inc. et Syndicat des travailleurs du plastique de
Coaticook (CSD), (Lucie Roy-Girard), D.T.E. 2005T-165
« Ne reste plus qu’à cerner la notion de « contrainte excessive » qui
vient poser une limite à l’exercice du droit à l’égalité en matière
d’emploi. Cette limite cherche à éviter que le droit fondamental de
gestion de l’employeur en matière d’organisation du travail ne soit
sérieusement compromis. »
« L’obligation d’accommodement sans contrainte raisonnable n’oblige
l’employeur à adapter son pouvoir discrétionnaire de gestion que dans
la seule mesure où il lui est raisonnablement possible de le faire à
l’intérieur de contraintes normales, par opposition à des contraintes
excessives. »
- Arbitre François Hamelin
DLA Piper
7
La portée de l’expertise
médicale
Syndicat des employés des installations portuaires (TCA, section
locale 1946) c. Rio Tinto Alcan inc., 2012 CanLII 51074 (QC SAT)
Requête du syndicat visant à faire reconnaître l’expertise d’un
psychologue pour poser un diagnostic de jeu pathologique.
Le plaignant a été suspendu puis congédié pour avoir fraudé ou
détourné des fonds du syndicat et des employés.
À l'occasion d'une conférence préparatoire, le syndicat s'est engagé
à produire un rapport d'expertise psychiatrique à l'appui de sa
défense de jeu pathologique.
Il a alors présenté une expertise préparée par un docteur en
psychologie.
L'employeur s’y est opposé.
DLA Piper
9
locale 1946) c. Rio Tinto Alcan inc., 2012 CanLII 51074 (QC SAT)
« Le jeu pathologique est une maladie ou une pathologie qui doit
être démontrée par l’administration d’une preuve médicale
pertinente. »
Poser un diagnostic médicale est un acte réservé aux médecins,
conformément à l’article 31 de la Loi médicale (LRQ c M-9) et aux
articles 31 à 34 du Code des professions (LRQ c C-26).
Un psychologue peut établir un diagnostic psychologique.
DLA Piper
10
Loi médicale, LRQ c M-9, article 31
31. L'exercice de la médecine consiste à évaluer et à diagnostiquer
toute déficience de la santé, à prévenir et à traiter les maladies dans
le but de maintenir la santé ou de la rétablir chez l'être humain en
interaction avec son environnement.
Dans le cadre de l'exercice de la médecine, les activités réservées au
médecin sont les suivantes:
1°
° diagnostiquer les maladies;
2°
° prescrire les examens diagnostiques;
3°
° utiliser les techniques diagnostiques invasives ou présentant des
risques de préjudice […]
Code des professions, LRQ c C-26, articles 31 à 34
La médecine est une profession d’exercice exclusif et seul les
membres de cet ordre professionnel peuvent exercer une activité
professionnelle réservée.
DLA Piper
11
Interior Health Authority and HEU (P. (R.)), Re (2013), 231 L.A.C. (4th)
119, 2013 Carswell BC 988 (B.C. Arb.)
Un préposé en soins de santé à Keremeos en Colombie-Britannique
a été congédié après avoir regardé et téléchargé de la pornographie
au travail.
L’ordinateur en question appartenait à l’employeur.
L’employeur avait des politiques concernant l’utilisation des
ordinateurs et de l’Internet au travail.
Les politiques ont été clairement communiquées à l’employé.
L’employé a prétendu qu’il souffrait d’une maladie mentale et qu’il a
eu un diagnostic positif de « comportement sexuel compulsif
concernant la consommation de pornographie » suite à un test de
dépistage.
DLA Piper
12
La compulsion sexuelle n’est pas un diagnostic énoncé dans le
DSM-IV.
Les «tests de dépistage» qui ont été administrés ne sont pas des
outils de diagnostic.
Il n'y avait pas de preuve convaincante que l'employé a été atteint
d'une invalidité au moment de son congédiement.
Le congédiement était justifié selon les facteurs suivants, entre
autres:
Il a été chargé de soins des personnes âgées et vulnérables; et
Il n'a pas démontré qu'une sanction moins sévère aurait un effet
correctif.
DLA Piper
13
Syndicat du personnel de soins et de soutien du centre de santé et de
services sociaux de Memphrémagog c. CSSS de Memphrémagog,
2014 CanLII 52199 (QC SAT)
La plaignante est auxiliaire en services de santé et services sociaux.
À compter du mois d'août 2008, elle s'est absentée du travail pour
cause d'invalidité en raison de problèmes de santé liés à un accident
vasculaire cérébral.
En juillet 2010, son médecin traitant a recommandé un retour
progressif au travail précisant les tâches qu'elle pouvait effectuer et
celles qui lui étaient proscrites.
Sur la base d’une évaluation complétée par un neurologue,
l’employeur a avisé le syndicat qu'il considérait avoir respecté son
obligation d'accommodement à l'égard de la plaignante et qu’il
estimait que celle-ci ne pouvait occuper un poste dans son
établissement.
DLA Piper
14
services sociaux de Memphrémagog c. CSSS de Memphrémagog,
« Il n’appartient pas au médecin d’évaluer les capacités
d’accommodement de l’Employeur. Il s’agit d’une responsabilité qui
incombe à l’Employeur. »
Pour respecter son obligation d'accommodement, l’employeur devait
démontrer qu'il avait entrepris des efforts sérieux et réels en vue de
permettre le retour au travail.
DLA Piper
15
Certaines limites à
l’obligation selon la
jurisprudence récente
Les souhaits de l’employé en matière
d’accommodement ne lient pas l’employeur
Québec (Gouvernement du) (Service aérien gouvernemental) et Syndicat
de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, 2014 TA 745
Plaignante est technicienne en entretien d’aéronefs et devient incapable
d’accomplir ses tâches en raison de limitations fonctionnelles
permanentes.
L’employeur attends que les limitations fonctionnelles énoncées au
certificat médical soient précisées par expertises avant de permettre le
retour au travail.
Entre temps, deux postes que la plaignante estime pouvoir occuper
devient disponibles, mais ne lui sont pas accordés.
Plaignante intente des griefs reprochant à l’employeur d’avoir: discriminé
en raison de son handicap, refusé son retour au travail et son
accommodement, refusé de lui attribué le poste de son choix, abusé de
son droit, d’harcèlement et de rétrogradation.
DLA Piper
17
La décision de l’employeur n’est pas abusive, discriminatoire et ne
constitue pas du harcèlement.
La motivation de l’employeur était d’assurer la sécurité de son
employé et éviter une récidive.
Les délais à réintégrer la plaignante ne découlent pas uniquement de
la conduite de l’employeur.
DLA Piper
18
L’employeur n’avait pas l’obligation d’accommoder la plaignante en
créant une fonction répondant à ses souhaits et respectant ses
limitations.
L’employeur n’avait pas l’obligation de renoncer à ses droit de
gestion quant à la manière de remplir ses postes vacants, surtout vu
que l’attribution de ces postes à la plaignante de façon privilégiée
aurait été inéquitable envers les autres employés.
La rétrogradation de l’employée était permise par la convention
collective, et en créant un poste « rétrogradé » pour la plaignante,
l’employeur s’est acquitté de son devoir d’accommodement.
Voir aussi Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs du Centre de la santé et des
services sociaux du Nord de Lanaudière et Centre de santé et des services sociaux du
Nord de Lanaudière, D.T.E. 2013T-88 - L’accommodement d’un employé qui brime les
droits des autres employés peut constituer une contrainte excessive.
DLA Piper
19
L’employeur n’est pas tenu de modifier l’horaire de
travail pour accommoder la conciliation travailfamille
Bouchard c. 9180-6166 Québec inc. Honda de la Capitale,
2015 QCCRT 31
Plaignante était directrice des services financiers pour un
concessionnaire d’automobiles et est partie en congé de maternité.
À son retour, elle a avise l’employeur qu’elle n’est plus disponible
pour travailler le soir pendant une période indéterminée. Avant son
congé, elle travaillait quatre soir par semaine. Elle demande une
modification de son horaire, mais la direction refuse.
Elle quitte quand même le travail à 16h00 dès son premier jour de
retour. L’employeur lui impose des sanctions, mais elle quitte encore
à 16h00 de façon répétée.
DLA Piper
20
L’employeur n’est pas tenu de modifier l’horaire de
travail pour accommoder la conciliation travailfamille
2015 QCCRT 31
Face à cette situation, l’employeur congédie l’employée.
La Plaignante dépose deux plaintes devant la CNT, l’une pour
pratique interdite et l’autre pour congédiement sans cause juste et
suffisante;
Elle allègue que la situation de parentalité est comprise dans le motif
de discrimination « état civil » énoncé à la Charte, et que l’employeur
devait donc modifier son horaire afin de lui permettre une conciliation
travail-famille.
DLA Piper
21
2015 QCCRT 31
Le tribunal arrive à la conclusion que la plaignante n’a pas démontré
qu’elle satisfait aux conditions lui donnant droit de s’absenter au
maximum 10 jours par année pour remplir des obligations liées à la
garde de son enfant selon la LNT.
Il n’est pas question de congé pour obligations familiales mais d’un
nouvel aménagement des heures de travail revendiqué par la
plaignante.
La situation de parentalité n’est pas comprise dans le motif « état
civil » énoncé à l’article 10 de la Charte et elle ne pouvait donc pas
exiger de l’employeur qu’il modifie son horaire afin de lui permettre
de concilier travail et famille.
Le congédiement imposé pour insubordination est justifié.
DLA Piper
22
RECOMMANDATIONS
Vérifiez que le besoin d’accommodement est clair et qu’il ne s’agit
pas plutôt d’un « souhait » ou d’une « préférence » de l’employé.
Ayez une politique concernant les certificats médicaux et les
examens médicaux indépendants.
Informez vos employés de ces politiques (et de vos autres politiques)
périodiquement et appliquez les politiques de manière uniforme et
constante.
Entreprenez des efforts réels et sérieux pour permettre le retour au
travail. C’est votre responsabilité.
Assurez-vous d’obtenir une opinion médicale adéquate et valide.
Assurez-vous que vos accommodements ne briment pas les droits
de vos autres employés.
DLA Piper
23
HOW TO BE REASONABLE IN YOUR
ACCOMMODATIONS:
A GUIDE FOR EMPLOYERS
Presented by Tania da Silva and Melissa Gaul
Caron v. Commission des lésions professionnelles, 2014
QCCS 2580 (CanLII)
Article 49 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
« confère un vaste pouvoir de redressement à la CLP
lorsqu'une violation de la charte est constatée,
notamment à l'égard des normes appliquées par
l'employeur pour déterminer s'il existe un emploi
convenable et même pour annuler le congédiement, le
cas échéant. »
DLA Piper
The Basics
(Canada) LLP
2
Hydro-Québec v. Syndicat des employé-e-s de techniques
professionnelles et de bureau d'Hydro-Québec, section locale 2000
(SCFP-FTQ) [2008] 2 SCR 561, 2008 SCC 43 (CanLII)
McGill University Health Centre v. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital
The situation should be assessed globally;
The duty to accommodate is neither absolute nor unlimited;
The employer must demonstrate that it cannot accommodate the
complainant without suffering “undue hardship”; and
The standard is “undue hardship”, not “impossiblity”.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
4
The test set out in Meiorin is clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada:
The standard has been adopted for a purpose rationally connected to
the performance of the job;
The employer adopted the standard in an honest and good faith
belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of a legitimate workrelated purpose; and
The standard is reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate
work-related purpose.
The employee cannot be accommodated without undue hardship.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
5
McGill University Health Centre v. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital
“The importance of the individualized nature of the accommodation
process cannot be minimized. The scope of the duty to accommodate
varies according to the characteristics of each enterprise, the specific
needs of each employee and the specific circumstances in which the
decision is to be made.”
“[…] when an employer makes a proposal that is reasonable, it is
incumbent on the employee to facilitate its implementation. If the
accommodation process fails because the employee does not cooperate, his or her complaint may be dismissed.”
“[…] the obligation of accommodation always rests with the employer
who must demonstrate that he has evaluated the possible measures of
accommodation and if he arrives at the conclusion that he cannot
accommodate without suffering undue hardship, he must prove it.”
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
6
UNDUE HARDSHIP
Plastiques TPI inc. et Syndicat des travailleurs du plastique de
Coaticook (CSD), (Lucie Roy-Girard), D.T.E. 2005T-165
« Ne reste plus qu’à cerner la notion de « contrainte excessive » qui
vient poser une limite à l’exercice du droit à l’égalité en matière
d’emploi. Cette limite cherche à éviter que le droit fondamental de
gestion de l’employeur en matière d’organisation du travail ne soit
sérieusement compromis. »
« L’obligation d’accommodement sans contrainte raisonnable n’oblige
l’employeur à adapter son pouvoir discrétionnaire de gestion que dans
la seule mesure où il lui est raisonnablement possible de le faire à
l’intérieur de contraintes normales, par opposition à des contraintes
excessives. »
- Arbitre François Hamelin
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
7
The Scope of Medical
Expertise
locale 1946) v. Rio Tinto Alcan inc, 2012 CanLII 51074 (QC SAT)
Union’s motion to recognize a psychologist’s expertise in diagnosing
compulsive gambling.
The claimant was suspended and subsequently dismissed for having
committed fraud or misappropriation of union and employee funds.
During the pre-hearing conference, the union undertook to produce a
psychiatric report in support of its compulsive gambling defense.
The union then presented an expert report prepared by an individual
with a doctorate in psychology.
The employer objected.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
9
locale 1946) v. Rio Tinto Alcan inc, 2012 CanLII 51074 (QC SAT)
« Le jeu pathologique est une maladie ou une pathologie qui doit
être démontrée par l’administration d’une preuve médicale
pertinente. »
Making a medical diagnosis is an act reserved for physicians,
pursuant to article 31 of the Medical Act (LRQ c M-9) and articles 31
to 34 of the Professional Code (LRQ c C-26).
A psychologist may make a psychological diagnosis.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
10
Medical Act, LRQ c M-9, article 31
31. The practice of medicine consists in assessing and diagnosing
any deficiency in health and in preventing and treating illness to
maintain or restore the health of a person in interaction with his
environment.
The following activities in the practice of medicine are reserved to
physicians:
(1) diagnosing illnesses;
(2) prescribing diagnostic examinations;
(3) using diagnostic techniques that are invasive or entail risks of
injury […]
Professional Code, LRQ c C-26, articles 31 to 34
Medicine is an exclusive profession and only members of this
professional order may engage in a professional act reserved for
said order.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
11
A care aide in Keremeos, British Columbia was dismissed after
having viewed and downloaded pornography while at work.
The computer in question belonged to the employer.
The employer had policies regarding the use of computers and the
Internet at work.
The policies had been clearly communicated to the employee.
The employee claimed to be suffering from a mental illness and that
he had been diagnosed with “sexually compulsive behaviour
regarding viewing pornography” following a screening test.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
12
“Sexual compulsivity” is not a diagnosis listed in the DSM-IV.
The “screening tests” that were administered are not diagnostic tools.
There was not convincing evidence that the employee was suffering
from a disability at the time of his dismissal.
The dismissal was justified according to the following factors, among
others:
He was entrusted with the care of elderly and vulnerable
individuals; and,
He failed to demonstrate that a less severe form of discipline
would have had a corrective effect.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
13
services sociaux de Memphrémagog v. CSSS de Memphrémagog,
The complainant was a health and social services assistant.
Beginning in August 2008, she was absent from work due to a
disability caused by health problems related to a stroke.
In July 2010, her physician recommended a gradual return to work,
specifying the tasks which she could perform and those which she
could not.
Based on an assessment by a neurologist, the employer advised the
union that it considered its duty to accommodate the complainant to
have been met and that the employer believed that the complainant
was not able to hold a position in its workplace.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
14
services sociaux de Memphrémagog v. CSSS de Memphrémagog,
« Il n’appartient pas au médecin d’évaluer les capacités
d’accommodement de l’Employeur. Il s’agit d’une responsabilité qui
incombe à l’Employeur. »
In order to meet its duty to accommodate, the employer must
demonstrate that it has undertaken serious and real efforts to allow
for the return to work.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
15
Certain Limits to the
Obligation According to
Recent Case Law
The employer is not required to accommodate
the employee’s preferences
The claimant was an aircraft maintenance technician and became
incapable of performing her work tasks due to permanent functional
limitations.
The employer waited for the functional limitations identified in the
employee’s medical certificate to be clarified by a medical expert’s report
before allowing the employee to return to work.
In the mean time, two positions that the claimant believed she could
occupy became available, but were not grated to her.
The claimant filed a grievance alleging that the employer: discriminated
against her due to her handicap, refused her return to work and to
accommodate her, refused to offer her the job of her choice, abused of
its rights, harassed her and demoted her.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
17
The employer’s decision was not abusive or discriminatory, nor did it
constitute harassment.
The employer was motivated by its desire to ensure the security of its
employee and to avoid a relapse.
The delays in reinstating the employee were not solely due to the
conduct of the employer.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
18
The employer was not obligated to accommodate the claimant by
creating a position that responded to her preferences and respected
her limitations.
The employer did not have an obligation to renounce its
management rights with respect to the way it filled its vacant
positions, especially given that granting the positions to the claimant
by preference would have been unfair to its other employees.
The demotion of the employee was permitted under the collective
agreement, and by creating a “downgraded” job for the claimant, the
employer fulfilled its duty to accommodate.
See also Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs du Centre de la santé et des
services sociaux du Nord de Lanaudière et Centre de santé et des services sociaux du
Nord de Lanaudière, D.T.E. 2013T-88 - The accommodation of an employee that
infringes upon the rights of other employees can constitute undue hardship.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
19
The employer is not obligated to modify its work
schedules to accommodate a work-life balance
Bouchard v. 9180-6166 Québec inc. Honda de la Capitale,
2015 QCCRT 31
The claimant was the Director of financial services for an automobile
dealership and left on maternity leave.
Upon her return, she informed her employer that she was no longer
available to work during the evening for an indeterminate period of
time. Before her leave, she worked 4 nights a week. She requested a
modification to her schedule, which was refused by management.
Nonetheless, she left work at 4pm on her first day back from leave.
The employer imposed disciplinary sanctions, but she repeatedly
continued to leave at 4pm.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
20
The employer is not obligated to modify its work
schedules to accommodate a work-life balance
2015 QCCRT 31
Faced with this situation, the employer dismissed the employee.
The claimant filed two complaints with the CNT: one for prohibited
practices and the other for dismissal without good and sufficient
cause;
She argued that being a parent was included under the “civil status”
grounds of discrimination under the Charter, and that the employer
should therefore modify her work schedule to allow a work-life
balance.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
21
2015 QCCRT 31
The court held that the claimant failed to demonstrate that she
satisfied the conditions granting her the right to be absent for up to 10
days per year due to family obligations related to the care of her child
in accordance with the LNT.
This was not a question of leave for family obligations, but rather a
new work schedule arrangement sought by the claimant.
Parental status is not included in the “civil status” grounds under
Article 10 of the Charter, and cannot be used to obligate the
employer to modify work schedules in order to allow a work-life
balance.
The dismissal for insubordination was justified.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
22
RECOMMENDATIONS
Confirm that there is truly a need to accommodate, rather than simply
an employees “desire” or “preference”.
Have a policy regarding medical certificates and independent
medical examinations.
Inform your employees of these policies (and of your other policies)
periodically and apply them in a uniform and consistent manner.
Make serious and real efforts to allow for the return to work. It is your
responsibility.
Make sure that you obtain medical opinions that are adequate and
valid.
Make sure that your accommodations do not infringe upon the rights
of your other employees.
DLA Piper
(Canada) LLP
23
LA CONTINUITÉ DE L’APPLICATION DES NORMES DU TRAVAIL :
Les articles 96 et 97 de la Loi sur les normes du travail
Me Anne Des Roches
Direction générale des affaires juridiques
Commission des normes du travail
Me Jessica Laforest
RIVEST, TELLIER, PARADIS
La Loi sur les normes du travail: son application
Le but principal de la LNT est de déterminer les conditions de travail
minimales qui se retrouvent automatiquement à l’intérieur d’un contrat
de travail.
Ces conditions de travail minimales sont des normes du travail
(articles 39.1 à 92.1 LNT) et elles visent notamment:
•
Paiement du salaire
•
Durée du travail
•
Jour fériés, chômés, payés
•
Congés annuels
•
Période de repos
•
Absence maladie
•
Absence pour raisons familiales ou parentales
•
Prévention du harcèlement psychologique
•
Protection contre un congédiement sans cause juste et suffisante (art.124 LNT)
La Loi sur les normes du travail: ses effets
Toutes les conditions de travail qui dérogent à une norme du travail sont
nulles de nullité absolue, même si elle sont prévues dans un contrat
écrit auquel le salarié a adhéré de façon libre et volontaire
(article 93 LNT).
Un employeur qui passe un contrat avec un sous-entrepreneur ou un
sous-traitant est responsable solidairement des obligations pécuniaires
découlant de ce contrat (article 95 LNT).
La Loi sur les normes du travail: ses effets (suite)
Article 96 LNT:
«L’aliénation ou la concession totale ou partielle d’une
entreprise n’invalide aucune réclamation civile qui découle de
l’application de la présente loi ou d’un règlement et qui n’est pas
payée au moment de cette aliénation ou concession. L’ancien
employeur et le nouveau sont liés solidairement à l’égard d’une
telle réclamation.»
La Loi sur les normes du travail : ses effets (suite)
Article 97 LNT:
L'aliénation ou la concession totale ou partielle de l'entreprise,
la modification de sa structure juridique, notamment, par fusion,
division ou autrement n'affecte pas la continuité de l'application
des normes du travail.
Entreprise ou employeur ?
La LNT ne définit pas une ENTREPRISE, mais la jurisprudence
nous fournit la définition suivante:
«L'entreprise consiste en un ensemble organisé suffisant des
moyens qui permettent substantiellement la poursuite en tout ou
en partie d'activités précises. » (U.E.S., local 298 c. Bibeault, [1988] 2 R.C.S.
1048)
Définition d’EMPLOYEUR :
« Quiconque fait effectuer un travail par un salarié. » (art. 1(7)
LNT)
L’ENTREPRISE est donc exploitée par un EMPLOYEUR qui peut
être une compagnie, une coopérative, une personne
individuelle, etc.
Le test de la continuité d’entreprise
L’arrêt U.E.S., local 298 c. Bibeault, [1988] 2 R.C.S. 1048 a déterminé les
2 conditions fondamentales qui sont requises pour conclure à
une continuité d’entreprise :
1. L'identification des éléments essentiels d'une entreprise
lesquels doivent se retrouver, de façon suffisamment
importante, chez le nouvel employeur;
2. Démontrer l’existence d’un lien de droit.
Les éléments essentiels de l’entreprise
Les éléments pris en considération doivent être orientés vers une
certaine activité chez le premier employeur et se retrouver chez
le second qui s'en sert, de façon identifiable, même si sa finalité
commerciale ou industrielle est différente
Contrairement à d’autres articles de loi semblable, la LNT exige le
transfert de salariés.
Chaque élément doit être pondéré selon son importance respective
dans l’entreprise.
Les éléments essentiels de l’entreprise (suite)
Exemples d’éléments pris en considération par les tribunaux:
- La clientèle
- Les équipements
- Le savoir-faire
- Les biens en inventaire
- Le lieu d’établissement
(adresse, numéro de téléphone)
- La raison sociale
- Les brevets utilisés
- Les fournisseurs
- Le nom de domaine Internet
- La publicité (brochures, etc)
Le lien de droit
Le lien de droit entre l’ancien et le nouvel employeur repose sur la
transmission volontaire d’un droit de l’entreprise.
Le lien de droit peut prendre différentes formes:
- vente directe ou par l’intermédiaire d’une vente en justice
- donation
- legs
- échange
- etc.
Quelques illustrations
•Un restaurant ou un bar;
•Une entreprise en faillite;
•Deux sous-traitants successifs;
•Une institution financière qui prend possession des actifs de
l’entreprise dans le but de protéger ses droits et intérêts;
2015 Employment & Labour Law Conference - Montréal
FEEDBACK FORM
Thank you for attending our event today.
Our goal is to make our conference as informative and relevant to participants as possible. Please take a few
minutes to complete the following survey. Please note that this survey is anonymous and we appreciate your
honesty. All comments will be used to assist in the planning of future events.
About You
What industry are you in? Please state: __________
Rating the Presentation Topics
Topic: Breaking Up is Hard to Do: The Reality of Post-Employment Obligations in 2015 - Karen Bock
Presentation Content:
Relevancy of Topic:
Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor






Comments:
Topic: Employee or Independent Contractor: the Tax Dilemma - Héloise Renucci and Mark Potechin
Relevancy of Topic:
Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor






Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor






Comments:
Topic: How to Bullyproof your Workplace - Michael Richards
Relevancy of Topic:
Comments:
Topic: Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) - Pablo Guzman and Lucy-Maude Lachance
Relevancy of Topic:
Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor






Comments:
Topic: Ontario Update: Recent Developments From the Centre of the Universe - Karen Bock
Relevancy of Topic:
Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor






Comments:
Topic: British Columbia Update: Recent Developments on the West Coast - Michael Richards
Relevancy of Topic:
Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor






Comments:
Topic: Alberta Update: Recent Developments - Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch
Relevancy of Topic:
Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor






Comments:
Topic: Québec Update: Recent Developments From La Belle Province - Melissa Gaul
Relevancy of Topic:
Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor






Comments:
Topic: Ouch, That Hurts! Increasing Damages Awards - Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch
Relevancy of Topic:
Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor






Comments:
Topic: What's up doc? Amendments to the Canada Labour Code - André Giroux
Relevancy of Topic:
Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor






Comments:
Topic: Navigating the Waters of the New Temporary Foreign Worker Program - Julio Mena
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor





Relevancy of Topic:





Comments:
Topic: How to be Reasonable in your Accommodations: A Guide for Employers - Tania Da Silva and Melissa Gaul
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor





Relevancy of Topic:





Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor





Relevancy of Topic:





Comments:
Topic: The Continuity of a Company - Jessica Laforest
Comments:
Rating the Conference
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neutral
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
The online invitation process was easy to
follow:





The reminder email provided helpful
information:





The Sheraton Centre Hotel was a
convenient location with easy access:





The materials provided are a good resource:





The conference room set-up was
comfortable:





I would still attend if the conference was
extended to a full day:





Overall Perception
Did your overall experience at today’s
conference:

Exceed your expectations

Meet your expectations

Fall below your expectations
Yes
No
Is it likely you will attend the event next year?


Are you likely to refer this event to a business
colleague:


Comments / Suggestions:
Conférence sur le droit de l’emploi et du travail - Montréal
mercredi, mai 6, 2015
SONDAGE
Nous vous remercions d’avoir participé à notre événement aujourd'hui.
Notre objectif est de rendre notre conférence aussi instructive et pertinente que possible pour nos participants.
Veuillez s’il-vous-plaît prendre quelques minutes afin de compléter le sondage suivant. Veuillez noter que ce
sondage est anonyme et nous apprécions votre honnêteté. Tous les commentaires serviront à aider à la
planification d'événements futurs.
Parlez-nous de vous
Dans quelle industrie travaillez-vous? Précisez : _________________________________________________
Classification des conférences
Sujet : Se séparer n’est pas une mince affaire : Les obligations post-emploi en 2015 - Karen Bock
Excellent
Très Bien
Bien
Acceptable
Mauvais
Contenu de la présentation :





Pertinence du sujet :





Commentaires :
Sujet : Employé ou travailleur indépendant : le dilemme fiscal - Héloise Renucci et Mark Potechin
Excellent

Très Bien

Bien

Acceptable

Mauvais






Commentaires :
Sujet : Comment protéger votre milieu de travail contre l’intimidation - Michael Richards
Excellent

Très Bien

Bien

Acceptable

Mauvais






Commentaires :
DLA Piper (Canada) S.E.N.C.R.L. 1
Sujet : Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ (harcèlement sexuel en milieu de travail) - Pablo Guzman et Lucy-Maude Lachance
Excellent

Très Bien

Bien

Acceptable

Mauvais






Commentaires :
Sujet : Mise à jour de l’Ontario : Développements récents au centre de l’univers - Karen Bock
Excellent

Très Bien

Bien

Acceptable

Mauvais






Commentaires :
Sujet : Mise à jour de la Colombie Britannique : Développements récents sur la côte ouest - Michael Richards
Excellent

Très Bien

Bien

Acceptable

Mauvais






Commentaires :
Sujet : Mise à jour de Alberta : Développements récents - Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch
Excellent

Très Bien

Bien

Acceptable

Mauvais






Commentaires :
Sujet : Mise à jour du Québec : Développements récents dans la Belle Province - Melissa Gaul
Excellent

Très Bien

Bien

Acceptable

Mauvais






Commentaires :
Sujet : Ouch ça fait mal! L’octroi des dommages est à la hausse - Wendy-Anne Berkenbosch
Excellent

Très Bien

Bien

Acceptable

Mauvais






Commentaires :
Sujet : Quoi de neuf docteur? Amendements au Code canadien du travail - André Giroux
Excellent

Très Bien

Bien

Acceptable

Mauvais






Commentaires :
Sujet : Naviguer les eaux du nouveau programme de travailleurs étrangers temporaires - Julio Mena
Excellent

Très Bien

Bien

Acceptable

Mauvais






Commentaires :
Sujet : Comment gérer vos accommodements raisonnables : un guide pour les employeurs - Tania Da Silva et Melissa Gaul
Excellent

Très Bien

Bien

Acceptable

Mauvais






Excellent

Très Bien

Bien

Acceptable

Mauvais






Commentaires :
Sujet : La continuité d'une entreprise - Jessica Laforest
Commentaires :
Classification de la conférence
Fortement
d’accord
D’accord
Neutre
Pas
d’accord
Vraiment
pas d’accord
Le processus d'invitation en ligne était
facile à suivre :





Le courriel de rappel a fourni des
informations utiles :





l’Hotel Le Centre Sheraton était un
emplacement idéal et facile d’accès :





Le matériel fourni est utile :





L'installation de la salle de conférence
était confortable :





J' assisterais également si la
conférence était prolongée pour la
journée complète :





Perception Globale
Globalement , avez-vous aimé
l’expérience, de la conférence
d’aujourd'hui :

Dépassée vos attentes

Répondue à vos attentes

En deçà de vos attentes
Oui
Non
Est-il probable que vous assisteriez à
l'événement l'an prochain?


Recommanderiez-vous cet
événement à un collègue :


Commentaires / Suggestions :

2015 conférence sur le droit de l`emploi et du travail

Transcription

Similar documents

parue - aipf

Voir

Free Radicals in Charcoal and the Combustion of Compositions

Ms. Sani Mariama Moussa: H.E. Alpha Souley Bah Mr. Gerardo

en format pdf

Untitled - Kool Film

DÉCLINAISON VERTICALE THE VINTAGE

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions E

in the mood for love

in Danger? - Youth.gc.ca