Canadian Employment Law Today

December 4, 2019

Focuses on human resources law from a business perspective, featuring news and cases from the courts, in-depth articles on legal trends and insights from top employment lawyers across Canada.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 4 of 7

Canadian HR Reporter, 2019 December 4, 2019 | Canadian Employment Law Today who leaves without completing the job may even be denied part payment for work al- ready done (see the British Columbia case of Noakes v. Midence) and may be liable to the client for the costs of hiring a new con- tractor to complete the work. A contractor, not being an employee, has no protection under the ESA against any withholding of payment for these reasons. e obligation of independent contrac - tors to provide their clients with notice is also laid out in the standards of professional bodies. For example, the Law Society of Ontario's rules provide that "a lawyer shall not withdraw from representation of a cli - ent except for good cause and on reasonable notice to the client." Similarly, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario requires its members to give clear written notification to the patient and provide "necessary medical services while the patient seeks a new physician." e Ontario College of Dentists tells its members that if they want to stop treating a patient, the patient should be "notified for - mally, preferably in writing" and also told that the dentist will provide emergency ser- vice until the patient can find a new dentist. e best policy is always to behave with courtesy and consideration, whether a per- son is in the position of an employee or an independent contractor. at will serve to enhance a reputation and provide access to continuing employment in the future. ere is no legal obligation for a departing employee to give any specific length of no - tice. However, in a situation where a person plays a key role, quitting without complet- ing her commitments (whether formal or implied) could create liability for damages for breach of contract. In the case of em- ployees, the protection of the ESA prohibits employers from retaliating by withholding the final paycheque of someone who quits without notice. For more information see: • Rainbow Concrete Industries Limited v. Ka- van Cheff-Burns, 2016 CanLII 14142 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.). • Elemental Data Collection Inc. v. Promesse Bama, 2019 CanLII 68046 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.). • GasTOPS Ltd. v. Forsyth, 2012 ONCA 134 (Ont. C.A.). • Noakes v. Midence, 2001 BCSC 1368 (B.C. S.C.). CREDIT: YP_STUDIO SHUTTERSTOCK ABOUT THE AUTHOR Peter Spiro Peter Spiro is an employment lawyer with Monkhouse Law in Toronto, specializing in class actions. He can be reached at (416) 907-9249 or

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Employment Law Today - December 4, 2019