Canadian Employment Law Today

March 2, 2016

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 0 of 7

PM40065782 Emplo y ment Law Today Canad ad a ian March 2, 2016 Probationary period means no inducement and no notice required AN ONTARIO employer was entitled to dismiss an employee without cause or no- tice since the employee was still in his pro- bationary period, the Ontario Divisional Court has ruled. Alexander Nagribianko was hired on May 10, 2013, by Select Wine Merchants, a wine and spirit import agency in Toronto. His written employment contract set out a six-month probation period beginning on his fi rst day of work, May 27. On Nov. 21, 2013, Select informed Nagrib- ianko his employment was being terminated because "after careful consideration" the company decided that he was "unsuitable for regular employment." ere were six days remaining in the six-month probationary period, so no notice or pay in lieu of notice was provided. Six months after his termination, Nagribi- anko launched an action in Ontario Small Claims Court for wrongful dismissal dam- ages. Nagribianko claimed Select hadn't given him an employee handbook, which was referenced in the employment contract and contained a clause stipulating Select could terminate employment during the probationary period with written notice or payment in lieu of notice under the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000. Nagribianko acknowledged that he un- derstood what a probationary period was, meaning that if he performed well his em- ployment would continue. He knew the pur- pose of a probationary period was to serve as a trial period during which the employer and employee assess each other and determine if the employment relationship can continue. He also said he had probationary periods in other jobs he had held. However, the court found Select had in- duced Nagribianko to come work for him and Nagribianko "was prepared to bet on Motel kicks housekeeper out on the street, must pay $10,000 Owner claimed worker was independent contractor who didn't require minimum wage, but controlled all aspects of the job BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ONTARIO employer must pay a strug- gling former employee more than $10,000 in lost wages and damages for pain and suf- fering after forcing the employee to work for below minimum wage and then fi ring her when she asked to be paid fairly, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has ruled. Elitsa Teneva was hired on Jan. 25, 2014, to work as a housekeeper cleaning rooms at the Cloverleaf Motel, a motel in Oshawa, Ont. At the time, Teneva was homeless and receiving social assistance, so she had a ver- bal agreement with David McKeown, the manager of Cloverleaf, to deduct $250 per week from the money she earned for a room at the motel. e motel paid Teneva on a per-room basis — $4 for a single room and $6 for a double room. She would clean, vacuum, Sales reps breached fi diciary duty pg. 3 Brothers started own business and solicited former employer's clients with Colin Gibson CREDIT: ANDREY_POPOV/SHUTTERSTOCK Post-incident testing for serious incidents only pg. 4 Employer had right to order post-incident drug and alcohol tests — but not for a minor incident where drug and alcohol use can be ruled out ASK AN EXPERT pg. 2 Dismissal without cause: Do reasons need to be given? PROBATIONARY on page 7 » CLEANER on page 6 »

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Employment Law Today - March 2, 2016