Canadian Employment Law Today

August 17, 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 11

PM40065782 Emplo y ment Law Today Canad ad a ian August 17, 2016 Dismissal for time off to care for family and injury discriminatory Company owner became frustrated after employee missed 3 days in a row due to family obligations and then an injury BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ONTARIO WORKER was discriminated against when he was dismissed for absences re- lated to his family status obligations and a dis- ability, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled. Jolando Miraka was a delivery truck driver for A.C.D. Wholesale Meats, a wholesale meat dis- tributor in Toronto. He was hired in May 2012 and his duties included building customer orders in the cooler room fi rst thing in the morning, loading the orders into his truck, and delivering them to customers. His shifts began at 5 a.m., ex- cept for Mondays, which were the slowest day of the week. His end time varied depending on the deliveries he was making. Miraka's wife had a traumatic birth experience in 2011 that led to related surgeries, resulting in physical issues and anxiety attacks that left her bedridden at times. On Monday, June 11, 2012, Non-compete agreement can't stand after employer's breach of agreement A BRITISH COLUMBIA worker did not breach his non-compete agreement be- cause his employer didn't live up to its end of the employment agreement, the B.C. Su- preme Court has ruled. Darryl Kramchynski was a qualifi ed heat- ing, ventilation, and air conditioning tech- nician who moved to Powell River, B.C., in 1999 and started a company there. In March 2010, Kramchynski sold his business to Pow- ell River Industrial Sheet Metal Contracting (PRISM). Under the sale agreement, Kram- chynski would receive a sum of money for his business and would work as a Prism em- ployee going forward. As a condition of the sale, Prism required Kramchynski to sign a three-year non-com- petition agreement in the event he decided to leave Prism. e agreement provided that Kramchynski wouldn't compete or be employed in the refrigeration business in the area of Powell River's school district or disclose confi dential information. Prism ini- tially proposed a fi ve-year non-competition agreement, but Kramchynski — surprised that there was one at all — insisted on reduc- ing it to three years before he signed it and agreed to the sale. Prism maintained the existing employees of Kramchynski's company, though there were no written agreements for them. Over the next few months, Kramchynski's former apprentice — who had then become a full employee under Kramchynski — be- came unhappy with his compensation with Prism. He left the company in November 2010 and started working for a competitor. A number of customers followed him to the competing company. Kramchynski tried to carry on with Prism, but he felt less motivated to build the business. As the business declined, Kramchynski felt he wasn't getting enough hours. Prism's director off ered to pay him to look for work elsewhere, but Kramchysnki refused as the work wasn't at his pay scale. Helicopter mechanic grounded by employer's over-reaction pg. 3 Tense encounter with client representative didn't cause harm to employer: Court CREDIT: BRIAN A JACKSON/SHUTTERSTOCK Employee fi red after frisky behaviour at fi sh fry dinner pg. 4 Employee said he was trying to be funny and didn't intend to offend, but behaviour was unwelcome ASK AN EXPERT pg. 2 Bonus entitlement after dismissal AGREEMENT on page 11 » FAMILY on page 8 » with Meghan McCreary

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Employment Law Today - August 17, 2016