Canadian Employment Law Today

September 14, 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 September 14, 2016 Wrongful dismissal damages — Bonus entitlement BY RONALD MINKEN FOR some workers, a bonus makes up a signifi cant portion of their remuneration. For others, a bonus is something that may or may not be provided by their employee at specifi c times of the year — such as Christ- mas, for example. Often, an employee who is dismissed without cause will ask whether her entitle- ment to wrongful dismissal damages will in- clude a component for lost bonuses. Compensation for wrongful dismissal can include an amount for a bonus which the employee would have been entitled to re- ceive during the notice period. In the absence of an employment agree- ment specifying to the contrary, the question is whether the bonus has become an essen- tial component of the employee's remunera- tion or whether it is essentially a gift — to be delivered at the employer's sole discretion. A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc., dealt with this issue. When Trevor Paquette was fi red by Tera- Go Networks, the dismissed employee and his former employer could not agree on a severance package. Paquette brought a sum- mary judgment motion to determine the pe- riod of reasonable notice and damages. e motions judge awarded notice at 17 months and based damages on salary and benefi ts that Paquette would have earned during the 17-month notice period. e motions judge did not award damages for bonuses, because the employer's bonus plan required an em- ployee to be "actively employed" at the time the bonus was paid. Paquette appealed that decision on the issue of whether the motion's judge made a mistake in not including compensation for lost bonuses. e Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. e motion judge erred in focusing on the Nurse fi red for forcing care on resisting care home resident Intentions were good but nurse made a mistake forcing protesting resident to have a shower, resulting in injuries to resident BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ARBITRATOR has upheld the dismissal of a registered practical nurse at an Ontario long- term care home after a resident suff ered injuries after resisting care and the nurse failed to fi le an incident report. Chester Posada was a regular part-time reg- istered practical nurse (RPN) at Bendale Acres, a long-term care home operated by the City of Toronto. He was hired in September 2008 and worked in the behavioural response unit, a locked area housing cognitively impaired residents who could act out. On Aug. 20, 2014, Posada was working in the unit with three other staff members. One of the patients, an 86-year-old man referred to as TS, suff ered from dementia and several other affl ic- tions that required him to be on blood thinners. e blood thinners increased TS' susceptibility Intoxicated, dishonest -- and reinstated with full pay pg.3 Employe ignored sunset clause in collective agreement CREDIT: LIGHTHUNTER/SHUTTERSTOCK Getting ready or legalized marijuana pg. 4 Employers will have to treat employee use somewhat differently -- but still as an intoxicating substance ASK AN EXPERT pg. 2 Employee harassment outside work ACTIVE on page 7 » EMPLOYER on page 6 » with Stuart Rudner

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Employment Law Today - September 14, 2016